Court asks state health services office to provide disabled-friendly facilities
Km. Chakpram Lokeshwori Devi vs Director, Health Services, Govt. of Manipur
Case No. 5 of 2016/17, THE STATE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, MANIPUR
The petitioner with a Loco motor disability, on 10.05.2016, applied under a disability category for the candidature of the posts published in a notification by the Director, Health Services, Govt. of Manipur. At the venue of the scheduled interview, the interview was to be held on the fourth floor and no arrangements were made for differently abled persons like ramps or lifts and the complainant was denied to gain access to interview.
The petitioner filed a complaint U/S 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 for violation of the provisions of Section 46(a) and (b).
The complainant prayed for allowing her to face the interview denied earlier as well as for issuing appropriate directions to the respondent for providing adequate facilities for Persons with Disabilities like ramps and adaptation of toilets for facilitating wheelchairs in the entire office building within a reasonable time frame.
The court observed that as the respondent failed to intimate the complainant about the arrangements made and the notification being issued on 07.10.2016 and interview conducted on the next immediate dates, the complainant was not afforded with sufficient opportunity due to which the issue of Doctrine of Waiver/Acquiescence did not arise in the present instance.
On adverting both parties, the court passed an order on 21.10.2016 directing the Respondent to conduct a fresh interview of the complainant and other candidates belonging to the category of Persons with Disabilities, also to ensure adequate facilities for the participation of persons with disabilities and the Respondent was asked to submit a compliance report within six months of this order.Read the order here.
Slideshow - Related Post
16/07/2010Hiralal M. Khatik v. Central Railway