HC refuses relief to civil services aspirant seeking appointment from disability quota
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday disposed off a petition filed by a person with disability, seeking retrospective appointment to the civil services based on his performance in the 2008 examination. He alleged that he was denied reservation due to his mental disability. Holding that the selection process was valid, the court stated that it could not grant relief to the petitioner based on his marks from the 2006-2008 selection process.
The petitioner said that upon a literal interpretation or rather misinterpretation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, reservations for persons with disabilities were provided only for 3% of the posts. Further, the posts identified were for only those suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or Cerebral Palsy. No posts were identified for those suffering from any mental illnesses.
The petitioner stated that he was afflicted by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which is considered a mental disability within the meaning assigned under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (2016 Act). He pleaded that despite him suffering from mental illness, he could not apply to the posts reserved for persons with disabilities in the selection process. Therefore, he applied to be considered against the posts reserved for the OBC category.
In the examination held in 2008, the petitioner secured 1110 out of 2300 marks. However, he could not get a position under the OBC category. He stated that the last candidate selected in the category reserved for persons with disabilities had secured only 991 marks out of 2300. 'If posts were to be identified and reserved for those suffering mental illness, then he would have certainly secured a position in the civil services in the year 2008 itself,' the petition stated.
Citing a 2013 judgment passed by the Delhi high court, the petitioner argued that the definition of 'person with disability' includes a person suffering from mental illness. He contended that the exclusion of those suffering from mental illnesses rendered the provisions of the 1995 Act arbitrary and unconstitutional due to the vice of under inclusiveness.
The 2016 Act came into force, which legislatively redressed the petitioner's concerns by expanding the definition of disability and included mental illness, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, specific learning disabilities, and others, which were not covered under the 1995 Act.
Based on the changed legal position under the 2016 Act, the petitioner represented to the central government and the Department of Disabilities that he should be appointed to the Civil Services based upon his performance in the 2006–2008 selection process. However, his representations were rejected by a communication dated July 5, 2018, and February 27, 2019. He was informed that no changes could now be made to the selection process that had concluded in 2008. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Bombay high court on April 1, 2019.
However, observing that the grant of relief would lead to administrative chaos, the division bench of justice MS Sonak and justice Jitendra Jain disposed off the petition. It noted that his appointment at this point of time will give rise to several complications regarding seniority, induction, etc. 'The petitioner's case was fairly and sympathetically considered but the authorities quite correctly found it difficult to grant the petitioner relief that he was seeking at this point of time,' it concluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka reconstitutes expert panels to revise healthcare package rates, private hospital norms
BENGALURU: In a move aimed at bringing uniformity and transparency to state-run health assurance schemes, the Karnataka government has reconstituted an expert committee to recommend standard package rates for medical services offered at participating establishments. The committee's primary task will be to evaluate healthcare costs and recommend uniform rates to be applied across public and private hospitals under government-supported insurance and assurance schemes. The effort is expected to reduce pricing disparities, improve access to quality care, and streamline reimbursements under schemes like Ayushman Bharat and state-run insurance programmes. 'The committee has been formed and the latest proposal highlights the need to revisit and update the existing package recommendations. Based on this, the government has formally amended the relevant rule and reconstituted the committee accordingly,' an order dated June 10 said. The newly formed panel will be chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary or Secretary to the Department of Health and Family Welfare. The committee includes key health administrators such as the Executive Director of Suvarna Arogya Suraksha Trust (SAST), the Health Commissioner, the Medical Education Director, and a representative from the Finance Department not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. A senior official from Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology will represent tertiary public healthcare institutions. Govt forms panel to review private healthcare standard In addition to government officials, the committee also includes non-official members from institutes such as the Indian Institute of Public Health (IIPH), IIM-B, among others. To ensure uniform standards across private healthcare institutions in the state, the state government has reconstituted an Expert Committee to review and recommend norms for classification, infrastructure, staffing patterns and staff qualifications in private medical establishments. The reconstitution follows a proposal from the Health Commissioner who sought a revision of the committee's non-governmental members. The comm ittee will be chaired by the Health Commissioner and include senior officials from the Departments of Health, Ayush, and Medical Education. It will also have representatives from NIMHANS, PHFI, Indian Medical Association, and other bodies. The panel is tasked with reviewing and updating existing norms related to the classification of institutions, required infrastructure, staffing patterns, and minimum qualifications for medical personnel, in line with the Karnataka Private Medical Institutions (Amendment) Act.
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC refuses relief to civil services aspirant seeking appointment from disability quota
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday disposed off a petition filed by a person with disability, seeking retrospective appointment to the civil services based on his performance in the 2008 examination. He alleged that he was denied reservation due to his mental disability. Holding that the selection process was valid, the court stated that it could not grant relief to the petitioner based on his marks from the 2006-2008 selection process. The petitioner said that upon a literal interpretation or rather misinterpretation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, reservations for persons with disabilities were provided only for 3% of the posts. Further, the posts identified were for only those suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or Cerebral Palsy. No posts were identified for those suffering from any mental illnesses. The petitioner stated that he was afflicted by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which is considered a mental disability within the meaning assigned under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (2016 Act). He pleaded that despite him suffering from mental illness, he could not apply to the posts reserved for persons with disabilities in the selection process. Therefore, he applied to be considered against the posts reserved for the OBC category. In the examination held in 2008, the petitioner secured 1110 out of 2300 marks. However, he could not get a position under the OBC category. He stated that the last candidate selected in the category reserved for persons with disabilities had secured only 991 marks out of 2300. 'If posts were to be identified and reserved for those suffering mental illness, then he would have certainly secured a position in the civil services in the year 2008 itself,' the petition stated. Citing a 2013 judgment passed by the Delhi high court, the petitioner argued that the definition of 'person with disability' includes a person suffering from mental illness. He contended that the exclusion of those suffering from mental illnesses rendered the provisions of the 1995 Act arbitrary and unconstitutional due to the vice of under inclusiveness. The 2016 Act came into force, which legislatively redressed the petitioner's concerns by expanding the definition of disability and included mental illness, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, specific learning disabilities, and others, which were not covered under the 1995 Act. Based on the changed legal position under the 2016 Act, the petitioner represented to the central government and the Department of Disabilities that he should be appointed to the Civil Services based upon his performance in the 2006–2008 selection process. However, his representations were rejected by a communication dated July 5, 2018, and February 27, 2019. He was informed that no changes could now be made to the selection process that had concluded in 2008. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Bombay high court on April 1, 2019. However, observing that the grant of relief would lead to administrative chaos, the division bench of justice MS Sonak and justice Jitendra Jain disposed off the petition. It noted that his appointment at this point of time will give rise to several complications regarding seniority, induction, etc. 'The petitioner's case was fairly and sympathetically considered but the authorities quite correctly found it difficult to grant the petitioner relief that he was seeking at this point of time,' it concluded.
Hans India
a day ago
- Hans India
Private hospitals fleecing patients left, right and centre
Hyderabad: Taking K Chandrashekarundue advantage of the lack of qualified doctors who could be engaged in regulatory oversight, most of the private and corporate hospitals, including those in the city, are flouting all the norms prescribed by the State Government in line with the centrally enacted Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 and collecting exorbitant charges for various procedures and treatments for in-patients with various health complications. According to healthcare experts, most of the hospitals in the city are violating even the elementary rule requiring mandatory display of the costs of surgical treatments prominently in their hospitals. Majority of the corporate healthcare centres fleece patients admitted for surgeries or with other health complications requiring long-term hospitalisation. Instead of going by the largely standardised charges for various procedures, their charges vary from person to person depending on the condition of the patient and whether he is insured. As soon as a patient is admitted, the hospitals make discreet enquiries about whether he or she is insured. If the patient is insured, they begin with a battery of diagnostic tests, not all of which may be required for the patient. If say a neuro patient is admitted, regardless of the protocol required in the particular case, they immediately go for X-ray, CT scan, MRI, 2dEcho, DSA and more before zeroing on the probable cause of the neuro issue. This is so even if the patient has a history of TIAs (transient ischaemic attacks). The trend these days is to advise the patient to go for a stent, which can cost from Rs 36,000, going up to lakhs and still leave the patient almost in a vegetative state if things go wrong. For most families, the battery of tests alone cost between Rs 30,000 and Rs 50,000. This amount is usually collected in cash as advance amount. Later, the consumables, operation theater expenses etc. for the procedure are charged as per the whims and fancies of the hospital in disregard of standardised rates. Thus, even 'insured' patients have to shell out a lot of money, be they middle class or lower middle class. As per a research conducted in India on the 'Out of Pocket expenditure' (OOPE), which is the expenditure people incur on their own for accessing healthcare, about 2.2 per cent of the population is pushed into poverty every year due to the amount of money they spend on healthcare. It is not that hospitals are left to their own devices. Hospitals across the country are required to display the charges for their services and procedures in a conspicuous place in English and in the local language, as per the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. Non-compliance can result in monetary penalties, and in severe cases, the hospital's registration can also be cancelled. Healthcare experts point out that while the government alone cannot cope with the massive demand for procedures and services, private entities are encouraged. This should not be done without regulatory oversight. That is, there should be clear limits on pricing for various procedures. The Telangana Medical Council (TGMC), which has been active in cracking the whip on quacks and imposters offering medical services, has done very little when it comes to restricting exorbitant pricing in hospitals. The TGMC Vice Chairman Dr G Srinivas conceded that many hospitals do not follow the rules. However, he said that the State government would have to act against errant hospitals as per the Clinical Establishment Act. 'We also get complaints for excessive charging and we report it to the state government for further action,' said Dr Srinivas. The administration is plagued with lack of staff to take up regular inspection of the hospitals suspected to be flouting rules. It may be mentioned here that the State Government adopted the Clinical Establishment Act enacted by the Centre in 2023 and all the rules prescribed in the Act should be automatically followed by the State government. Sources said that with the start of the recruitment drive by the government, the question of scarcity of doctors can be addressed and inspections taken up. The Director of Public Health, Dr B Ravinder Nayak, told The Hans India that as per the rules, hospitals needs to display the price list and inform the patients in advance. When asked about any remedial action to help those who have been wronged, the Director said that if any patient feels the pricing has been exorbitant, they can approach the District Registration Authority (DRA), which is headed by the District Collector. The DRA would be forwarding the cases to the DMHO. He further clarified that the Centre as per the Act has been trying for uniformity of the pricing and it would take some time, but it will be implemented for sure.
