2014 (3) TMI 224 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of guidelines issued for differently abled person - Conduct of Examination by ICAI - Restriction in usgae of number of scribes - The reason given by the respondent no.1 for not maintaining panel of scribes is that it does not have its own campus and has to conduct examination at as many as in 377 centres spread over 96 cities throughout the country as well as in 4 cities outside the country and, therefore, it is not possible for it to find out suitable persons to be appointed as scribes for differently abled persons at such places. Held that - A perusal of the Academic Rules and Regulations of Jawaharlal Nehru University shows that it is the university who pays the charges of a writer providing assistance to the visually impaired students. Considering the guidelines issued by the Government of India, and the guidelines issued by University of Delhi and a reasonable probability of the differently abled persons not being able to find appropriate persons to act as scribes/writers for them during examination, it would only be appropriate for the respondent no.1 to prepare a panel of such scribes/writers at least in the major cities where examinations are held by it. Wherever it is so possible, the ICAI, instead of engaging its own scribes/writers, may engage scribes/writers on the panel of other universities/ institutions at the places where such universities/institutions and/or their affiliated colleges provide such scribes/writers. If a panel of scribes/writers is prepared by ICAI, there would be no need for the candidates to hunt for such scribes and the Superintendent/In-charge of the examination centres also will not have to take the trouble of checking the qualifications and antecedents of the scribes/writers arranged by the candidates themselves. At the places where respondent no.1-ICAI is not able to prepare a panel of scribes/ writers, the candidates will have no option but to arrange their own scribes/writers, but in that case, there should be no restriction on the number of changes allowed to candidate, as far as engagement of scribes/writers is concerned. As regards the apprehension that a candidate may try to avail the services of persons having special knowledge in the subject in which the candidate has to appear and write paper with the help of a scribe/writer, the apprehension has already taken care of by stipulating in the guidelines by respondent no.1 by prescribing qualification of the writer/scribe which is 10th/Matriculation for CPT Examination, for final/intermediate (IPCE) and graduate for post qualification course. The registered students of CA/CWA/CS course and those who have passed final examination or are member of ICAI, ICWAI and ICSI are not eligible to be a scribe/writer for the final and intermediate examinations. As regards qualification of scribes/writers prescribed in the guidelines framed by respondent no.1-ICAI, I find no reason to direct any modification in the said guidelines which are aimed at curbing any possible use of unfair means/malpractice during the course of examination by engaging scribes/ writers who are either equally or more qualified than the candidates. ICAI directed to prepare at least in major cities, its own panel of scribes/writers - Decided partly in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent no.1 should be directed to prepare its own panel of scribes for differently abled persons.
2. Whether the respondent no.1 should pay the charges of the scribe provided to/engaged by differently abled persons.
3. Whether multiple changes of scribe should be allowed to differently abled persons.
4. Whether the qualification of the scribe prescribed in the guidelines framed by respondent no.1 requires any modification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Preparation of Panel of Scribes:
The petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, challenged the guidelines of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) regarding the provision of scribes. The court noted that ICAI does not maintain its own panel of scribes due to logistical challenges, as it conducts examinations in 377 centers across 96 cities in India and abroad. However, the court referred to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, which emphasize the need for a flexible and comprehensive policy for differently abled candidates. The court observed that several universities, like Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University, maintain panels of scribes and provide them to candidates. The court directed ICAI to prepare a panel of scribes/writers in major cities within six months, either by forming its own panel or adopting panels from other institutions.

2. Payment of Charges to Scribes:
The court highlighted that universities such as Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University pay scribes for their services. It directed ICAI to fulfill its social obligation by paying scribes/writers engaged by candidates. ICAI was instructed to prepare a Schedule of Charges within three months and reimburse candidates as per the approved rates.

3. Allowance for Multiple Changes of Scribes:
The petitioner sought the flexibility to change scribes multiple times, citing difficulties in finding a competent and permanent scribe. The court recognized the challenges faced by differently abled candidates in arranging scribes and the potential for undue pressure from scribes if replacements were not allowed. The court referred to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, which permit candidates to use more than one scribe for different papers. The court ruled that there should be no restriction on the number of changes allowed for scribes and that the Superintendent/In-charge of the examination center should make appropriate decisions in this regard.

4. Qualification of Scribes:
The petitioner requested modifications to the qualifications required for scribes. The court, however, found no reason to alter the existing guidelines, which aim to prevent malpractice by ensuring scribes are less qualified than the candidates. The court upheld the current qualification criteria set by ICAI.

Judgment:
The court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
1. ICAI shall prepare a panel of scribes/writers in major cities within six months, either by forming its own panel or adopting panels from other institutions.
2. ICAI may amend its guidelines to deny the facility of engaging private scribes where a panel is available, provided scribes from the panel are offered to candidates.
3. ICAI shall prepare a Schedule of Charges for scribes/writers within three months and reimburse candidates as per approved rates.
4. There shall be no restriction on the change of scribes, and the Superintendent/In-charge of the examination center shall make appropriate decisions.
5. The qualifications of scribes/writers shall remain governed by the existing guidelines.

The writ petition was disposed of with no orders as to costs.