Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nikhil Prabhakar Shedge, a Mechanical Engineer with 40% visual impairment, applied for the UPSC Civil Services Examination 2016 under the visually impaired quota. The UPSC advertisement dated 27th April 2016 earmarked 7 vacancies for blind/low vision candidates out of 1079 total vacancies. The petitioner applied online and sought permission to bring his own scribe for the written examination. UPSC refused, citing its policy that scribes must be from a different academic stream and not be relatives. The petitioner challenged this refusal, arguing that the Office Memorandum dated 26th February 2013 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment allowed candidates to choose their own scribe, and that UPSC's condition violated his rights under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The court examined the nature of the Office Memorandum and held that it was directory, not mandatory, and that UPSC had the discretion to prescribe reasonable conditions to ensure the integrity of the examination. The court noted that UPSC offered the petitioner an alternative scribe from its panel, which was a reasonable accommodation. The court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no fundamental or statutory right to a scribe of one's own choice, and that UPSC's policy was reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Headnote
A) Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Section 33 - Reservation - Scribe Facility - The petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, challenged UPSC's refusal to allow his chosen scribe. The court held that Section 33 only provides for reservation in vacancies, not a right to scribe of choice. The Office Memorandum dated 26.02.2013 is directory, not mandatory, and UPSC has discretion to impose reasonable conditions to ensure fairness. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - The court held that UPSC's policy of not allowing a scribe who is a relative or from the same field does not violate Article 14 as it is based on reasonable classification to prevent malpractice. (Paras 11-15) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Article 21 - Right to Livelihood - The court held that denial of scribe of choice does not infringe Article 21 as the petitioner was offered alternative scribe facility. The right to livelihood is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a visually impaired candidate has a fundamental or statutory right to choose a scribe of his own choice in the UPSC Civil Services Examination, and whether the Office Memorandum dated 26.02.2013 is mandatory or directory.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. UPSC's refusal to allow petitioner's own scribe upheld as reasonable.
Law Points
- Right to scribe is not an absolute right
- UPSC has discretion to prescribe reasonable conditions
- Office Memorandum dated 26.02.2013 is not mandatory but directory
- Section 33 of PWD Act does not confer right to scribe of choice
- Article 14 and 21 not violated by reasonable classification.
