Supreme Court: Allowed Aid Of Scribe For Judicial Services Aspirant With Writer’s Cramp

The Supreme Court in the case Dhananjay Kumar v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & Anr observed wherein a plea was moved by an aspirant of Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge, Preliminary Examination who was being suffering from the writer’s cramp and the petitioner was being denied a scribe for the examination.
It has been directed by the Top Court the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for ensuring that a scribe is made available to the petitioner.
The bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha passed the said direction.
In the present case, the petitioner in the plea stated that the cramp of writer is a specific type of focal dystonia (neurologic movement disorder) that affects one’s fingers, hand, or forearm. Despite the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, wherein a certificate is issued for consideration of providing scribe or extra time to the petitioner for any examination, thus, the same is refused by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Further, the petitioner in the case argued before the court that the examination was being scheduled for April 30, 2023 and it being necessary for the petitioner to have a scribe for the same. The plea also states that the petitioner had earlier attended the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) examination, 2020-2021, wherein the opportunity was provided to petitioner to the use the scribe while taking his exams.
Therefore, the petitioner in the plea stated that the entire career of the petitioner has been jeopardised by the decision taken by the respondent and due to his performance will be compromised in the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil judge, the Preliminary Examination, 2023.
The Apex Court also observed the case Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission And Ors, wherein it has been directed by the court that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to ensure that a scribe is made available to the petitioner.
Advocate-on-Record Namit Saxena appeared for the petitioner.