Anand Bihari and Others versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another (1991) 1 SCC 731 Civil Appeals Nos. 1859-63 of 1990Court Name:the supreme court of indiaAct: The Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights & full participation ) Act 1995Section: 33. Reservation of Posts -Context of circular:Eyeway Synopsis:The employees of the corporation were asked to leave their jobs due to sudden disability which made them incapable of performing their duties. The court ordered, that all the employees should be given retirement benefits and should be given alternative jobs and if there is no vacancy then they should be compensated for that as well. The court also stipulated that if in the future there are some jobs suitable for these retired employees then should be offered such jobs, and at such a time should the said employees wish to take up the particular job then they would be required to give back appropriate amount of compensation. Hence the choice of accepting or denying the job will rest solely with the employee and not the corporation.
Court Name:the supreme court of indiaAct: The Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights & full participation ) Act 1995Context of circular:Eyeway Synopsis:A writ petition was filed so as to urge court to order proper implementation of section 39 of PWD Act. The court ordered for reservation of 3% seats in government and non government educational institutions. However this does not mean that seats shall also be reserved in jobs in such governmental and non-governmental institutions, as section 39 only ensure reservation of seats for educational purpose.
Court Name:the supreme court of indiaAct: The Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights & full participation ) Act 1995Section: 33. Reservation of Posts -Context of circular:Eyeway Synopsis:Amita applied for the post of Probationary Officer as per a newspaper advertisement, but she was not allowed to write the entrance exam by the Banking Service Recruitment Board Chennai as she was visually impaired. The court ordered that the board grant Amita permission to sit for the exam in the future, if she wishes to appear for any bank exam (Probationary Officer). The court also stipulated that she should be treated preferentially (given preference) in case of appointment if she clears the written exam. Also should the board not follow the courts decision, it would lead to violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as well as miss-conduct against court’s order.
Salil Chaturvedi and Prajwala versus Union of India (2009) 4 SCC 798 Writ Petition (C) Nos. 56 and 576 of 2004 and 212 and 580/2003Court Name:the supreme court of indiaContext of circular:Eyeway Synopsis:
Salil Chaturvedi and Prajwala vs Union of India (2009) 4 SCC 798 A person by public interest litigation urged that despite commencement of PWD Act in 1996, sec 43 has not been implemented properly by many states or local authorities and due to this person with disability are deprived of their rights as guarded by act in force. The court ordered the concerned authorities at the state and local level to frame their future land allotment policies keeping in view sec 43 of Person with Disability Act 1995.