New Delhi, Nov 3 The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a suo moto case in relation to the amendments made in the Madhya Pradesh judicial service recruitment rules excluding visually impaired and no-vision candidates from appointment to the service.
As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, will hear the matter on November 4.
The top court, in March this year, had registered the suo moto proceedings after a letter petition was addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by the mother of a visually impaired candidate who aspired for appointment in the judicial service in Madhya Pradesh.
Turning the letter petition into a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, it had directed the issuance of notice to the Union government, state government and Registrar General of the MP High Court.
Further, it had requested senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal to assist the court as amicus curiae in the matter.
In an interim order passed subsequently, the Supreme Court had ordered visually impaired candidates who have received the minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination to sit for the main examination.
“The High Court shall make arrangements to permit a scribe for each visually impaired candidate who will appear for the main examination. Such candidates shall also be given additional time to complete the examination at the rate of 20 minutes per hour of the examination,” it ordered.
Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 excluded visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment in the judicial service.
Rule 6A, inserted in June 2023, provides that 6 per cent of posts will be horizontally reserved for persons suffering from a locomotor disability, including leprosy cured, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy and acid attack victims, excluding cerebral palsy, as specified under section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016).
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor