VIKASH KUMAR versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 11-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
   [2021] 12 S.C.R. 311
311
VIKASH KUMAR
v.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 11, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
INDIRA BANERJEE AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – ss. 2(r), 2(s),
2(y), 3 and 56 – Civil Services Examination Rules, 2018 – Facility
of a scribe in the Civil Services Examination – Entitlement to – The
appellant has a disability in the form of dysgraphia, commonly known
as a Writer’s Cramp – On 07.02.2018, UPSC issued a notification
for the CSE 2018 – The CSE Rules 2018 issued by DoPT providing
for the manner and conduct of the examination – The general
instructions provided that all candidates must write their papers in
their own hand and will not be allowed the help of a scribe –
Exceptions to this rule were provided for blind candidates;
candidates with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy where the
“dominant (writing) is affected to the extent of slowing the
performance of function (minimum of 40% impairment)” –
Candidates within the exception were allowed the help of a scribe –
Appellant in his online application for the CSE 2018 declared himself
to be a person with a benchmark disability of 40% or more and
requested the UPSC to provide him with a scribe for the examination
– Application was rejected by the UPSC – Aggrieved, appellant
moved to the Tribunal – Tribunal dismissed the application and it
was held that appellant did not fulfill the criteria – Appellant filed
writ petition – The High Court declined to interfere with the order
of the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant had not qualified
at the Preliminary Examination for CSE 2018 and thus, the relief
seeking an amendment of the CSE Rules 2018 to provide scribes to
candidates with specific disabilities was rendered otiose – The
Supreme Court directed AIIMS to constitute a medical board to
evaluate the condition of the appellant – AIIMS, by its report opined
that the appellant suffers from a “chronic neurological condition”
termed as bilateral Writer’s Cramp – However, the report opines
that while he does not suffer from a “benchmark disability”, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
appellant is a ‘person with disability’ under the RPwD Act, 2016 –
The extent of the disability is assessed at 6% – Held: The guidelines
of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 29.08.2018
recognise the entitlement to a scribe only for candidates with
benchmark disabilities – The guidelines which have been framed
on 29.08.2018 can by no means be regarded as being exhaustive
of the situations in which a scribe can be availed of by persons
other than those who suffer from benchmark disabilities – The rights
which emanate from provisions such as s.3 extend to persons with
disability as broadly defined by s. 2(s) – To confine the facility of a
scribe only to those who have benchmark disabilities would be to
deprive a class of persons of their statutorily recognized entitlements
– To do so would be contrary to the plain terms as well as the object
of the statute – In the instant case, the condition of appellant was
repeatedly affirmed by several medical authorities including
NIMHANS and AIIMS – The appellant has a specified disability
inasmuch as he has a chronic neurological condition – This condition
Forms part of Entry IV of the Schedule to the RPwD Act 2016 – The
writer’s cramp has been found successively to be a condition which
the appellant has, making it difficult for him to write a conventional
examination – To deny the facility of a scribe in a situation such as
the present would negate the valuable rights and entitlements which
are recognised by the RPwD Act 2016 – Appellant entitled to the
facility of a scribe – Thus, the impugned order and judgment of the
High Court is set aside.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – ss. 2(r), 2(s),
2(y), 3 and 56 – Benchmark disability not a precondition to obtain
a scribe – Held: The whole concept of a benchmark disability within
the meaning of s. 2(r) is primarily in the context of special provisions
including reservation that are embodied in Chapter VI of the RPwD
Act 2016 – Conceivably, the Parliament while mandating the
reservation of posts in government establishments and of seats in
institutions of higher learning was of the view that this entitlement
should be recognized for persons with benchmark disabilities – As
a matter of legislative policy, these

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.