Madras High Court orders issue of notice to Centre, state govt on PIL
- Congress backs Priyanka Gandhi as she hits out at opposition for 'targeting Robert Vadra without proof'
- Elections 2014 LIVE: Kejriwal to file nomination from Varanasi tomorrow; Cong slams Modi for levelling 'cheap' allegations against Gandhi family
- Would prefer to go to Pakistan than stop criticising Narendra Modi: Omar Abdullah
- IPL spot fixing: Do you want to probe charges against Srinivasan? SC asks Justice Mudgal panel
- Hate speeches: Petty statements by those claiming to be BJP well wishers deviating poll campaign, says Modi
The Madras High Court on Friday ordered issue of notice to the Union and state governments on a PIL challenging a government order exempting completely visually and hearing-impaired candidates from applying for the post of District Judges (entry level).
The First Bench of the high Court, comprising Chief Justice R.K.Agrawal and Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, ordered the notice to the Centre and state government on the PIL filed by a visually-impaired advocate R. Mohammed Nasurallah and posted the matter for further hearing to November 27.
The petitioner contended Tamil Nadu Judicial Service (cadre and recruitment) rules 2007 allow the blind/deaf advocates, competing along with others, to apply for the above posts. The above rules also provide reservation under 1:1:1 along with orthopedically handicapped, the petitioner submitted.
The petitioner, while referring to a judgment of April 22, this year, and April 15, 2009, said the court had directed the state government to issue a notification under section 33 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (Act 1 of 1996) exempting candidates who were fully visually and hearing impaired as they were not competent to be judges.
He said based on the recommendation of the high-powered committee of the Court, the state government had issued the order.
The government order was liable to be set aside as Act 1 of 1996 was not applicable to the appointment of civil judge and district judge (entry level), which were governed by 2007 Rules, he submitted.
- Five months after gruesome ATM attack, accused still at large
- Ex-syndicate member of Bangalore University held in marks-for-cash scam
- Accused get bail as police fail to file chargesheet
- ‘Naxals collected info on trucks carrying explosives from Khadki to Ahmednagar’
- A tale of two villages: Ramayan and Mahabharat
- UP CM tears into Modi bastion on first visit to Gujarat, says Third Front ready