Gujarat HC directs state education board to clearly specify questions meant for visually impaired students in Class 10, 12 exams
Justice Nikhil S Kariel, in the order issued on the writ petition on July 7, observed, 'The marks of 10th standard examination, though very important to a student, would not be the criteria for any future admission (except for standard 11) or any future employment. After the 10th board results were released and the students, including the petitioner, had joined new academic courses, it would not be in the larger public interest to interfere in the present petition.'
The petitioner Mohammed Afzal Shaikh, on behalf of his daughter Aasiyabanu Shaikh, who studies at a private school in Surat, said the girl had appeared for her Class 10 exams in March this year, in which she opted for Basic Mathematics. She cleared the exams with a B1 grade. In Basic Mathematics, she scored 59 out of 80 marks and an overall 77 out of 100 marks.
The petition states that after getting the Basic Mathematics examination paper, Aasiyabanu was confused as questions also appeared in sections B and C, which contained sections for visually impaired students. Each question carried 2 to 4 marks. She complained about this to her father.
Following this, Shaikh filed a writ petition with the Gujarat High Court challenging the actions, arbitrary and negligent conduct of the State Board for having ambiguous information in the question paper, causing significant confusion among students.
Aasiyabanu, the plea said, inadvertently answered questions meant specifically for visually impaired (blind) students, relying solely on her general understanding. Several other students too were misled and answered questions intended for visually impaired students. Despite Aasiyabanu's father submitting a detailed representation and a subsequent application under the Right to Information Act (RTI), there was no positive response.
In the petition, Shaikh had sought directions to the respondents to re-evaluate Aasiyabanu's Basic Mathematics answer sheet, taking into account the confusion caused due to the defective question paper and appropriately revise the results.
The petitioner's lawyer Dr Rafik Lokhandwala, in his representations to the court, said the issue occurred in part-B of the question paper. The same issue had occurred in the Class 12 question paper, he said.
Public Prosecutor Aditya Pathak argued that the petitioner is presently studying in Class 11 in the Commerce stream and it is not the case that the petitioner, due to lack of marks, could not get appropriate admission to some other stream.
Taking the arguments into consideration, the court observed, 'The petitioner had not suffered any real substantial prejudice on account of the error which may have been committed by the respondent Board. While the petitioner may have a case against the respondent Board, public interest and equity demand that there should not be any interference in the present petition.'
'The list of instructions contained in the question paper does not specify whether the questions preceding or following the instructions are for visually impaired students. Thus, a reasonable doubt would be caused in anyone's mind, more particularly a student appearing in the 10th standard examination, as to whether the instructions would be relatable to the preceding questions or later questions,' it added.
Issuing a direction to the Board, the court said it has to 'ensure that for examinations held in future, both for standard 10th and 12th, the list of instructions preceding the actual questions shall specifically state that the questions are only to be attended by the visually impaired students. Furthermore, the general instructions in the body of the question paper shall also specifically mention the question numbers which are for the students having visual impairment.'
Speaking to The Indian Express, B N Rajgor, Joint Director, GSHSEB, said, 'Generally, we set a common Board examination paper for visually impaired and general students. This time, the instructions were in the middle, and the questions appeared after the instructions for visually impaired students. Now, we will give more clarity in our Board examination papers.'
Aasiyabanu's father, Afzal Shaikh, said, 'Now the mistake of the Board will be rectified in future board exams of Class 10 and 12, after the court's order. My act will benefit lakhs of students appearing in future Board exams.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Use RTI to seek reasons for public employment and policy deviations
Recently, an RTI questioner from Coimbatore sought some very useful information. The query was built around RTI's utility in questioning the re-employment order by the Department of Higher Education, with a focus on the use of RTI queries as a tool for public accountability. In a compelling example of how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to challenge administrative decisions, a former professor and RTI activist has raised critical questions about a recent order issued by the Department of Higher Education in Tamil Nadu, which allows re-employment of certain college-level administrative officers beyond the age of superannuation. On July 31, the department issued an order permitting the re-employment of those engaged in administrative functions, even after crossing the age of 60 years. This move, based on a request from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, sparked concern over its legality and consistency with existing government norms. RTI activist seeks answers: N R Ravisankar, an RTI activist and former Head of the Mathematics Department at CBM College, Coimbatore, submitted a formal representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, raising a red flag on the order. He cited Government Order (G.O.) 192 dated November 12, 2024, which had categorically barred re-employment for such positions beyond the age of 60. Prof. Ravisankar argues that the new order contradicts this amendment to G.O. 92, which states: 'Every government servant in the superior as well as basic service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years. They shall not be retained in service after that age.' Questions raised under RTI: The activist's move highlights how RTI can be effectively used to demand transparency and rationale behind policy reversals or deviations. Through RTI applications and petitions, the following key questions can be posed to the Department of Higher Education and relevant authorities: Did the Higher Education Department consult the Law Department before issuing this July 31 G.O.? If yes, provide copies of such legal opinions. Has any review committee or expert panel been constituted to examine the impact of re-employment on governance, recruitment opportunities for younger candidates, and institutional autonomy? How many officials have been re-employed under this new order? Please provide a district-wise list with names, designations, and dates of reappointment. Was the re-employment order placed before the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or its relevant committee for oversight, especially in light of its policy implications? Is there any provision under existing UGC regulations or the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules that permits administrative staff to continue beyond superannuation age, specifically in aided colleges? What was the rationale behind cancelling re-employment in an earlier instance—such as the case of a government-aided college in Coimbatore where a new principal was directed to be appointed upon the previous incumbent's retirement? Does the July 31, 2025 G.O. apply to government-aided institutions as well? If yes, how does this comply with the statutory and financial norms applicable to such institutions? Legal and ethical dilemma: Prof Ravisankar underscores that such re-employment orders not only defy the retirement age rule but also block opportunities for younger aspirants in the education sector. 'If the rule is clear that retirement is mandatory at 60, how can administrative exceptions be allowed selectively? It defeats the very purpose of uniformity and public interest in service rules,' he said in his representation. His RTI-based challenge exemplifies how citizens and professionals can act as watchdogs over executive discretion, especially in sectors like education, where transparency and accountability are vital for fair governance. An administrative question: Whether the Department of Higher Education will issue a clarification or revoke the July 31 order remains to be seen. To reinforce the utility of the Right to Information (RTI) in questioning government re-employment policies post-superannuation, we can refer to a landmark decision by this author (Prof. (Dr.) M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner (CIC)). This answer underscored citizens' right to seek reasons and file queries regarding public employment and policy deviations, especially those affecting transparency and equal opportunity. In File No: CIC/SA/A/2016/001978, the CIC ruled that: 'Public authorities are bound to give reasons for selection, extension, or re-employment of public servants, especially when there is a departure from standard procedure or existing policy.' This judgment arose in the context of an RTI applicant seeking details about the re-employment of a retired officer in a central government department. The Central Information Commission directed the public authority to: Disclose the note sheets and file notings showing the rationale for re-employment. Provide copies of approval orders, correspondence, and minutes of meetings that led to the decision. Clarify whether any rules were relaxed or amended to allow such re-employment. In his detailed reasoning, he emphasised: 'When a government servant is re-employed post-retirement, especially when young and qualified aspirants are awaiting regular appointments, the authorities must place on record the compelling public interest that justified such a move.' This principle is directly relevant to the July 31, 2025 re-employment order issued by the Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education. Based on that ruling, the following implications arise: Citizens can question: Activists like Prof Ravisankar can seek: 1. The file notings, justifications, and correspondence from the Higher Education Department and Collegiate Education Commissioner-On whether any rules under G.O. 92 or G.O. 192 were amended or bypassed. 2. Lack of transparency violates the RTI mandate-If the July 31 order does not disclose public interest justifications, it could be seen as arbitrary or opaque, inviting challenge under RTI as well as judicial review. 3. Re-employment must serve public interest, not individual continuity-As noted in the order: Public offices are not meant for the convenience of individuals but for the service of the public. 4. RTI is a tool to uphold equality and fair opportunity-Re-employment of individuals beyond 60, without open recruitment or advertisement, raises serious concerns about denial of opportunity to eligible younger candidates, which can be pursued through RTI. Activists or citizens can file RTIs asking for: Copy of the July 31 G.O. with background file notes and recommendations; Details of consultation with the Law Department, if any. This judgment of CIC affirms that RTI is a powerful legal mechanism to challenge arbitrary re-employment, demand transparency in administrative decisions, and protect the rights of deserving aspirants. In the current Tamil Nadu case, this precedent strengthens the position of public-spirited individuals like Prof Ravisankar in ensuring that public policy does not become a tool for preferential or non-transparent governance. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC grants relief to news anchor accused in defamation, atrocities case after complaint by senior Congress leader
The Gujarat High Court on Monday granted relief to an Ahmedabad-based news anchor in a case of defamation and atrocity, filed by Congress leader Dr Tushar Chaudhary, based on the assurance of the Additional Public Prosecutor that the journalist will be served a notice of 15 days in case the investigating officer deems it appropriate to arrest her. Justice Nirzar Desai was hearing the petition by Gopi Maniar-Ghanghar, anchor of Ahmedabad-based Nirbhay News Channel, for quashing and setting aside the FIR lodged at Tapi District, based on Chaudhary's complaint under Section 356 (Defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various sections of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Chaudhary is the newly appointed Congress Legislature Party (CLP) leader in Gujarat Assembly. The court order stated, 'Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave has made a statement before this Court upon instructions received by the Nikita Shiroya (SC/ST Cell Tapi Vyara) that… the investigation is at very initial stage and therefore, it would serve the end of justice if this Court records the statement of learned Public Prosecutor that in case, during the course of investigation, if the investigating officer deems it appropriate to arrest the present applicant, she will be given a clear notice of fifteen days and upon receipt of the notice…' The court further said, 'The applicant would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy so as to take remedial measure to seek relief against her proposed arrest. Such a period would start from the date of receipt of the notice by the present applicant.' Chaudhary's complaint is also against Jagdish Mehta, group editor of Rajkot-based Headlines News channel. Chaudhary has alleged that the journalists had defamed him and his deceased father, former Gujarat Chief Minister Amarsinh Chaudhary. In the FIR, the Congress MLA from Khedbrahma has alleged that in a show aired on July 22 on Nirbhay News, Ghanghar made an objectionable statement against him. He said Mehta consented to the statements, which were 'defamatory for him and the entire tribal community'. Ghanghar's advocate Utkarsh Dave said, '…Ghanghar… was the interviewer, who does not have control over what the other person is going to say… We will proceed with legal remedy in case the notice for arrest is issued.'
NDTV
11 hours ago
- NDTV
Centre's Auditor CAG Flags Underuse of Construction Workers Welfare Funds In Delhi
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has raised serious concerns over the underutilisation of welfare funds and weak implementation of worker-related schemes in Delhi. According to the performance audit tabled in the Delhi Assembly, the national capital renewed only 7.3% of construction worker registrations between 2019 and 2023, significantly lower than the national average of 74%. The report, covering the four-year period when the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was in government, found that while Delhi had collected substantial funds under the welfare cess, a large portion remained unspent. It also highlighted deficiencies in data accuracy, registration processes, benefit delivery, and regulatory oversight. Gaps in Data, Duplicate Entries The audit found that out of 6.96 lakh registered workers, the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board was able to provide complete details for only 1.98 lakh. Within this group, over 1.19 lakh beneficiaries were linked to 2.38 lakh photographs, raising concerns about duplicate records and shortcomings in the IT system used to manage registrations. "The presence of multiple images for the same individual, blank images, and duplication suggest the system lacked the capability to flag inconsistencies," the audit noted. Welfare Funds Remain Underutilised The audit reported that Delhi's Welfare Board had accumulated Rs 3,579 crore by March 2023 under the 1% construction cess mandated by the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. However, key benefits and welfare schemes saw limited implementation. Of the 17 schemes in place, only 12 were operational during the audit period. No expenditure was recorded under five schemes, including maternity assistance, house purchase loans, tool grants, and insurance policies. The report also noted delays in disbursing benefits; for example, education assistance worth Rs 46.08 crore meant for 58,998 children of workers for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20 was released only in March 2022. No funds were provided for subsequent years till September 2023. A mismatch of Rs 204.95 crore was also reported between the cess figures recorded by districts and those maintained by the Board. Regulatory Oversight and Enforcement Issues The report pointed out that no construction site inspections were carried out by the Labour Department or the Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health during the four-year audit period, limiting compliance checks on contractors and establishments. Further, the audit identified 97 cess-paying private firms and 25 construction-related businesses listed on the Delhi Fire Service website that were not registered with the Welfare Board. This was attributed to the Board's limited efforts in identifying eligible establishments. Recommendations made by the Central government in 2018, such as providing transit accommodation, mobile toilets, and creches at worksites, had not been acted upon in Delhi, the report said. Training of workers also came to a halt after 2019-20. Insurance and Health Coverage Gaps The audit also flagged discrepancies in the compensation structure. While the Board had approved revised compensation of Rs 4 lakh for accidental death and Rs 2 lakh for natural death in 2019, the older rates of Rs 2 lakh and Rs 1 lakh continued to be offered during the audit period. Unlike several other states, Delhi did not integrate its construction workers into the Ayushman Bharat-PM Jan Arogya Yojana (AB PM-JAY), a centrally sponsored scheme providing Rs 5 lakh annual health insurance per family. Instead, workers in the capital were eligible for medical assistance up to only Rs 10,000. Legislative Response Expected Officials said the report, which was tabled by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta during the ongoing monsoon session, is expected to be taken up for discussion in the coming days. While the audit offers detailed findings and data-backed assessments, the final response from the government and the Board may influence future reforms to the welfare system for construction workers in Delhi. As the capital continues to expand and rely on its construction workforce, the report raises critical questions about whether the available welfare mechanisms are reaching those they are meant to serve.
