Showing posts with label Non-discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Non-discrimination. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Suo Motu Vs. Vice Chancellor, Dr. BR Ambedkar University & Anr. | Case No.919/1032/2019/05/3699-3700 | Dated: 23.07.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.919/1032/2019/05/3699-3700                             Dated: 23.07.2019      

In the matter of:

Suo Motu          
                                 
Vs

Vice Chancellor,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University,
Lothian Road, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006.                                                       …………Respondent No.1

The Secretary,
Directorate of Higher Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5, Sham Nath Marg,
Prema Kunj, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054.                                                    ……………Respondent No.2

Date of hearing:         19.07.2019  
Present:               Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh, Dean, Student Services, Sh. Harsh Kapoor, Asstt. Registrar and Ms. Bindu Nair, Asstt. Registrar, on behalf of Respondent No.2.                                    

ORDER

It was brought to the notice of this court that the drop down box in the online application form 2019 of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Delhi provides only for “PwD Hearing Handicapped”, “PwD Orthopedically Handicapped” and “PwD Visually Handicapped”.  Therefore, persons having benchmark disability of all the category of disabilities would not be able to apply. 

2.   The Schedule to the Act contains the following specified disabilities:-
Locomotor disability, leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy, acid attach victims, blindness, low vision, deaf and hard of hearing, speech and language disability, intellectual disability, specified learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, mental illness, chronic neurological conditions, multiple sclerosis, parkinson’s disease, hemophilia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease and multiple disabilities.

3.   As per Section 2(r) of the Act, person with benchmark disability” means a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority.

4.   Section 32 of the Act provides:
“(1) All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent. seatsfor persons with benchmark disabilities.
(2)The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education.”
  
5.   The matter was taken up with the respondent university vide Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2019 with advice to modify the online application format by 07.06.2019 to enable persons with all the specified disabilities mentioned in the Schedule to the Act to apply using appropriate expressions/terms and also provide for a mechanism for instant removal of any difficulty faced by applicants with benchmark disability in applying for admission to various courses offered by the University.  Respondent No. 2 was directed to issue appropriate guidelines/advisory to all the Government Institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government to ensure reservation of not less than 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities and upper age relaxation of 5 years.

6.   Respondent No.1 vide reply dated 12.06.2019 inter alia submitted as under:-
          “The response is as under:-
1.            The reservation of 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities is being followed by AUD.  All the persons with benchmark disabilities are given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission.
2.            As per chapter 4 for Disability under clause 34 the following are the parameters of disabilities:
i.             blindness and low vision
ii.            Deaf and hard of hearing
iii.           Locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attach victims and muscular dystrophy;
iv.          Autism, intellectual disability specific learning disability and mental illness
It may please be noticed that the in the online application form the above mentioned categories have been broady categorized as:
(i)           PwD Visually Handicapped (VH)
(ii)          PwD Hearing Handicapped (HH)
(iii)        PwD Orthopedically Handicapped (OH)
(iv)        PwD Intellectual Disabilities (ID)

It may be noted that the *University has been complying with the PwD Act.  However, keeping in view the aforesaid notice received from the commission informing about appropriate expression./terms, the university will modify the online application for to the extent that full form/coverage of various PwD categories will be visible in the form itself.
In case you need any further clarifications, please feel free to revert. 
Yours sincerely,
Dean, Student Services”

7.   Upon considering the reply of Respondent No.1 and no response from Respondent No.2, a hearing was scheduled on 19.07.2019.

8.   While none appeared from Dte. of Higher Education, the representatives of Respondent No. 1 submitted that they have taken action as per their understanding and the University would like to make its campus fully accessible and friendly to persons with disabilities and follow the provisions of the Act in the letter and spirit.

9.   Besides the expression/terms used by the University, not being the appropriate ones, there is a likelihood of the persons having benchmark disabilities not mentioned in the drop down box, may not apply or may not be able to apply for admission against the reserved seats.

10. The usage of the expression “handicapped” has long been recommended to be banned and the Social Welfare Department, GNCT of Delhi has also issued a circular in this regard.

11. It is also pertinent to bring to the notice of the respondents that the Universities and colleges like any other Government establishment are mandated to reserve seats under Section 32 and vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities under section 34 of the Act.  They need to ensure accessibility to built environment, information technology (website) under section 42, 44, 45 and 46, registration of Equal Opportunity Policy under section 21 and appoint Grievance Redressal Officer under section 23 of the Act and the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018.  The Universities and colleges are also specifically mandated to :-
(i)      implement provisions under section 39 for orientation and sensitization on human condition of disability;
(ii)      induct disability as a component for all education courses for colleges and University teachers, organize training programmes for  sports teachers and promote teaching and research in disability studies and establish study centres for such studies under section 47 of the Act and induct rights of persons with disabilities in curriculum in Universities and colleges.



12.     In light of the above, the following recommendations are made:-
(i)      The drop down box for online admission or any form that is used for admissions, should either mention all the specified disabilities as these appear in the Schedule to the Act or it should mention that reservation of seats for persons with benchmark disability under section 32 of the Act is open to persons having benchmark disability of all the categories mentioned in the Schedule to the Act.
(ii)      The expressions/the terms as mentioned in the Act only should be used for various communications, advertisements, website etc. and the expression “handicapped” should not be used.
(iii)     Respondent No. 2 should issue appropriate guidelines/ advisories to all the Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government to ensure reservation of not less than 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities and upper age relaxation of 5 years.  They should also be advised to facilitate admission of candidates with disabilities.  In addition, appropriate directions may also be issued to all Universities/Colleges/Institutions of higher education to ensure implementation of various provisions in the Act concerning them which are mandatory.
    
13.     This court be informed of the action taken on the recommendations within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.


14.     The matter is disposed of with the above recommendations.

15.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd day of July, 2019.




(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Monika Dhankhar Vs. Th MS Guru Nanak Eye Centre | Case No. 677/1023/2019/01/2263-2264 | Dated:13.05.2019



In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 677/1023/2019/01/2263-2264                          Dated:13.05.2019

In the matter of:

Ms. Monika Dhankhar,

D-1002, Pearl Court,
Ramprastha, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201301                                              ……Complainant
                                               
                                                             Versus

The Medical Superintendent,
Guru Nanak Eye Centre
Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110002                                                    …..Respondent

Date of hearing:   08.05.2019
Present:               None appeared from complainant side
Sh. S.K. Purohit, S.O. alongwith Sh. Rajkumar on behalf of respondent
ORDER
The above named complainant, a person with 45% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 04.01.2019 alleged that she was being given odd hours of duty and in the night shift in Guru Nanak Eye Centre. Derogatory remarks, “this is not rehabilitation center and you got reservation in your education, job and now you need in duty as well”, were made against her.  She was selected as general candidate and not by reservation.  Her disability is due to Kyphoscoliosis (Cervico-Dorsal) due to which she has problem in working for prolonged hours. As per DoPT, Govt. of India OM no. 36035/3/2013/Estt.(Res) dated 31.03.2014,persons with disabilities should preferably be posted to perform jobs which they can easily do.  The incident has affected her mental health and she had to request Secretary, Health & Family Welfare to revert her to her previous posting.  She requested to issue an informative memorandum to the hospitals under the Health & Family Welfare Department so that persons with disabilities enjoy their rights without any hassles. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 17.01.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,hereinafter to referred to as the Act.  The respondent vide letter dated 09.02.2019 submitted that as per guidelines issued by Govt. of India and endorsed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for persons with disabilities, only soft duty is given to persons with disabilities.  Ms. Monika Dhankhar was given the duties from 08:00 A.M to 02:00 P.M for 06 hours only.  Neither any odd duties/prolonged duties/ night duties was given to her nor was any derogatory remark used by anybody against her.  Copies of the replies obtained from DNS and ANS of the hospital were also enclosed. 

3.       Vide her rejoinder dated 21.02.2019, the complainant submitted that the ATR of Medical Superintendent was false.  In support of her contention, she enclosed a copy of an extract of the attendance register for the month of January 2019 as per which “N” is marked against her name for 24, 25 and 26 January 2018.

4.       Upon considering the written submission of the parties, a hearing was scheduled on 01.04.2019, which was attended by the complainant, her brother Sh. Mohit Dhankhar, Ms. Neelam Sharma (ANS), Ms. Malti Sabharwal (DNS) and Vineet Sachdeva.

5.       During the hearing, the complainant reiterated her allegations and stated that the remarks were made by Director.  The attention of the representatives of the respondent was drawn to the need for appreciating that a socially beneficial legislation like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has been enacted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Despite elaborate and the rights based provisions in the law, there is inadequate sensitivity and unwillingness to extend reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities to enable them to work in an inclusive and congenial environment.  

6.       Even before the above Act was enacted, DoPT, Govt. of India had issued the guidelines dated 30.03.2014 to provide certain facilities, services and amenities to persons with disabilities to enable them to discharge their duties effectively.After hearing the complainant and representatives of Guru Nanak Eye Centre, it was advised vide RoP dated 02.04.2019 that the Director of the Centre and superiors of the complainant should sit together and discuss the matter with a view to appreciating the situation of the complainant and that such remarks have very serious impact on the dignity and self-respect of a person with disability and are against the provisions of the Act.  They should also deliberate on ways to ensure that such situations do not occur in future and extend reasonable accommodations.Besides, the need for creating awareness and sensitization amongst the officers and staff was indicated which had also been emphasized by this Court on a number of occasions including vide letter no.F.1/1759/2017/Admn./Per/CD/12840-12995 dated 13.12.2018 to all the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries/Heads of Departments.

7.       Sh. D.N. Singh, Admin Officer/ HOO vide letter dated 24.04.2019 informed as under:
the administration ofGNED with the approval of Head of the department/ Director GNEC had posted Ms. Monika Dhankhar at the lightest duty place in OPD area that too only from 08:00 AM to 02:00 PM.  This posting order was an evidence of humanely behavior keeping in view her health issues/ Disabilities. 
She was posted suitably without any intervention from any of the authority including your office and she was never offended by any of the officer or staff in any manner. 
If she desires to apply for posting in any of the office/ Hospital/ Dispensary etc, in vicinity to her resident, we will forward her request to the Department of Health & Family Welfare for posting at the nearest office/ Hospital etc. from her residence on humanitarian grounds. 
In addition to above, this administration intends to follow all the directions/ guidelines issued by DOPT or by your office for protection of Rights of persons with Disabilities in letter and spirit.  The copy of relevant guidelines/ instructions may kindly be provided to this office for its compliance. 
As regards to item 4 of aforesaid order regarding need for creating awareness and sensitization among all officers and staff working in this institution, it is stated that the administration of GNEC will provide suitable place i.e. Auditorium of the hospital for organizing such awareness program under your esteemed guidance.
Kindly depute any of the office having expertise for the purpose of sensitization and communicate us the schedule for the said program”.

8.       On the next date of hearing on 08.05.2019, Sh. S.K. Purohit, S.O. and Sh. Raj Kumar appeared.  Subsequently Sh. D.N. Singh Admin Officer also appeared and submitted that as has already been submitted, no derogatory remarks were made against the complainant.  He personally called the complainant and asked her if she had any evidence about the derogatory remarks allegedly made by the Director against her.  She could not produce any evidence.Therefore, there was no need to organize a session.She has been deployed on a soft duty from 08:00 AM to 02:00 PM at the help desk and she is satisfied with the place of posting.

9.       The concerned administrative functionaries of Govt. of NCT of Delhi are expected to be aware about the provisions of the Act, Rules and the provisions made for persons with disabilities in general and the employees in particular as the office of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has organized 07 Training workshops on RPwD Act, 2016 and reservation for persons with disabilities at UTCS after the Act came into effect and all the establishments were requested to depute their officers and staff.  The representatives of the respondent were however, informed that as per Para 2.A of OM no.  36035/3/2013/Estt.(Res) dated 31.03.2014 issued by Department of Personal and Training, each Ministry/ Department of the Government of India, their attached and subordinate offices, Central Public Sector Enterprises, Cantonment Boards should identify the types of jobs which could be easily performed by persons with disabilities specially for Group B, C and D posts where the number of jobs are more.  Such persons should preferably be posted to perform such identified jobs and they be allowed to continue performing such jobs, as far as possible.Para 2.H of the said O.M provides,as far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance.  The said OM can be accessed from the website of DoPT at www.persmin.nic.in.

10.     Rule 14 of the Delhi Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 requires every Government establishment to appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer as mandated under Section 23 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.  Guru Nanak Eye Centre has not appointed the Grievance Redressal Officer so far.  The respondent is therefore advised to appoint the Grievance Redressal Officer within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

11.     The complainant had informed on telephone that she was on election duty and she had no further submissions to make.  However, at the time of the hearing her telephone was switched off and therefore her brother, Sh. Mohit Dhankhar was contacted on his given telephone and was requested to advise the complainant to email if she had any submissions to make failing which the complaint would be disposed of. No comments/ statement have been received from the complainant till date.  Hence, in the light of the action taken/ proposed to be taken by the respondent, the compliant is disposed of. 

12.     Action taken on the recommendation in para 10 be intimated with 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 13thday of May, 2019.
                                                                            




                  
(T.D.Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Swati Babber Vs. Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Intraprastha University | Case No. 8/1033/2017/10 /2135-2136 | Dated: 07.05.2019



In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 8/1033/2017/10 /2135-2136                       Dated: 07.05.2019

In the matter of:

Ms. Swati Babber,
House No. 198, Ward No. 2, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030.                                                   ….…….Complainant
                                                Versus
The Registrar,
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
Sector-16/C, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078.                                                   ..……..Respondent

         ORDER


              The above named complainant, a person with 40% disability due to dyslexia vide her complaint dated 20.10.2017 submitted that she was failed intentionally in Town Planning paper of B. Arch 4th year (2016-2017).  She further submitted that the answer sheet of all the students of the said paper including her answer sheet contained the same answers. While other students were declared pass, she was declared fail. She requested for proper Investigation by perusing the answer sheets of all the students (internal and external exams) which would prove discrimination against her.  She also requested to restrain destruction of the answers sheets.

2.           The complaint was taken up with the respondent under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act, vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 20.10.2017 with the direction to the respondent to produce the answer sheets of all the students of B. Arch 4th year 2016-2017 Town planning paper (Internal and External) on the date of hearing.

3.           During the hearing on 22.11.2017, Ms. Shaili Srivastav, Associate Professor, Vastukala Academy College of Architecture, where the complainant was studying,  produced the answer sheets of 29 candidates along with the break-down of internal evaluation sheets (4th Year-B) Session 2016-17. She submitted that the complainant obtained 68% marks and did not fail in internal evaluation.  She  also produced the answer sheets of the class test of the paper ‘Transport and Housing’ in which complainant obtained 27 marks out of 50.  Since her allegation was that all the students including herself copied but she and her group were discriminated, the answer sheets of the complainant and Ms. Nikita Bajaj who, according to her, was in her group while copying,   were compared.  It was found that the answers written by the both of them were similar and marks obtained were also same i.e. 27.  It was almost apparent that they had written the same answers.

4.           The complainant could not give the names of other students in the group as she did not know who was sitting where.  However, she stated that as the examination was conducted under the surveillance of CCTV Camera, its footage should be examined.  By doing so, it could be ascertained whether she and her group were given less marks for the same answer. She also alleged that people in the college / university taunted her and pointed to her being dyslexic. If she was treated like normal students, she would have performed better.

5.           It was observed that it was for the University / concerned college to investigate the issue of cheating, this Court would limit itself to ascertain whether the complainant  was failed intentionally and discriminated on the ground of her disability.

6.           Ms. Shikha Agarwal, Incharge, Result(IV), Assistant Registrar, GGS Indraprastha University produced the answer sheets of external paper (Code AP412), Town Planning examination held in May 2017 in respect of 291 candidates. She submitted that the complainant got 25 marks out of 75 as per the result.  She further submitted that each answer sheet was coded and examiner could not have known the name of the any student while checking it. Hence there could not be possibility of discrimination against the complainant.  The representatives of the University stated that they were not aware whether the CCTV recording of the examination was done or not.  However, if the same was done, it may have been done by the concerned examination centre i.e. New Delhi Institute of Management, 61 Tugalakabad Institutional Area,  Near Batra Hospital, New Delhi-62.

7.           After hearing the parties were directed as under:-
(i)           Respondent University shall ascertain whether the CCTV recording of the internal and external examination was done. If so, the same be procured and examined whether there were instances of mass cheating as alleged by the complainant and  whether the complainant was given less marks than other students who had written similar answers.  This be done by a Committee of 03 subject teachers who will submit a report by 25.12.2017. A random check will be carried out during the hearing.
(ii)         The CCTV footage be shared with the complainant who will submit the list of candidates who were sitting in the group alongwith her.
(iii)        The complainant who claimed that she also has done some recordings, may produce the same to substantiate her allegations on the next date of hearing.
(iv)        The answer sheets be retained till disposal of this complaint and be produced on the next date of hearing on 30.12.2017”.

8.      Assistant Registrar & Incharge Result (1) vide letter dated 26.12.2017 informed that New Delhi Institute of Management (External Examination) did not  have any CCTV facility. And hence no CCTV footage was available. Vastu Kala Academy where the complainant was admitted (internal examination) informed that their CCTV cameras are of low resolution and have no facility to preserve the data beyond a  week. Hence the footage of the period of time when the class test was conducted, was not available.


9.           On the next date of hearing on 05.01.2018, the complainant vide her email  requested for rescheduling the hearing after March, 2018 as she had to finish her internship of B. Arch. and the hearing was scheduled on 04.04.2018.

10.    During the hearing on 04.04.2018, the representatives of the respondent informed that the complainant has already cleared Town Planning exam and she was doing internship.  Professor Shelly Srivastav also produced the answer sheets in support of her contention that no discrimination was meted out to the complainant.  Rather there is evidence of positive discrimination in favour of the complainant. 

11.    The complainant stated that she did not receive the copies of the reply of the respondent, which were given to her.   She also did not have the video clip referred to in para 4(iii) of the Record of Proceedings of hearing held on 22.11.2017.  She however stated that she had sent some video clips to the University through e-mail which she tried to show during the hearing.  However, it did not open.   

12.    After hearing the parties, the complainant was advised to concentrate on her studies as only three months were left to complete B.Arch.  Professor, Shelly Srivastav assured of extending all possible support and reasonable accommodation to the complainant during her studies.  She was given the opportunity to submit her comments, if any by 10.05.2018.

 13.   As comments were not received from the complainant, an email dated 24.05.2018 was sent to her to submit the same by 10.06.2018. Vide her email dated 10.06.2018 she requested extension of 30 days to submit her comments.

14.    Complainant was also contacted many times on her given telephone but no communication have been received from her  till date. In the view of this, the complaint is disposed of.

15.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 06th day of May  2019.



(T.D.Dhariyal)
                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities