Petitioner

(a) Contradictory to Fundamental Righs-

The constitution of the country Oikkobhumi ensures the recruitment process of the
government and non-Govt organisations should be inclusive of persons with disabilities, based
on the principle of non-discrimination. Article 29(I) of the Constitution of Oikkobhumi
guarantees equal opportunity for all citizens regarding employment on office in the service of
the Republic.
Any action or inaction of the Government or any law that may exclude people with disabilities
from employment opportunities in unconstitutional. in the case of Shurendra Kumar v. State of
Tamilnadu a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna
overruled a two-Judge SC bench ruling of 2019 upholding a ceiling of 40-50% visual/hearing
impairment as the benchmark for a person's appointment as a civil judge (junior division) in
Tamil Nadu and said persons with physical disability must be given all possible assistance,
technological as also a scribe, for taking examination to compete with a real sense of equality.
(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/blindness-disability-no-bar-to-being-judge-sc/
articleshow/80871072.cms )

Paragraph 2 of this fact provides that, the basic human rights of a citizen of Oikkobhumi have
been duly protected by its constitution regardless of gender, class, religion, race etc. And that
does not discriminate people with disabilities. Later on, paragraph 5, Shadhin Talukdar the
disabled applicant rejected by OJSC on the ground that persons with disabilities are not
eligible for admission to the judicial service, which is clearly contradictory and inconsistent to
its Constitution.

b. Violative to fundamental principles of the state policy –

According to Article 19(I) of the Constitution of Oikkobhumi , the state shall endeavour to
ensure equality of opportunity to all citizens. Though it failed to ensure equality of
opportunities in this case. Persons with disabilities are not eligible for admission to the judicial
service. Shadhin Talukder, an individual with visual impairment was denied to have an aid of a
scribe to sit for the OJSC exam and later declared not eligible for admission to the judicial
service on the ground of visual disability, which is clearly violative to the fundamental
principles of the Constitution of Oikkobhumi because, Sadhin Talukder didn’t get opportunity
as others.

c. OJSC Rules, 2007 bars the employment of disable persons into judicial
service-
From paragraph 6 of this fact, when questioned about the legality of
the OJSC’s decision in response it stated that visually and physically impaired individuals are
not qualified for appointment to the position of Assistant Judge under the OJSC rules,2007.
Sub-rule 4 under rule 5 of the OJSC rules, 2007 provides that, of the health examination only
persons can be appointed to the service who are fully fit and healthy and without any physical
disability. This rule bars the people with physical disability from entering into judicial service,
meanwhile, people with
visual disabilities have been regularly participating in different recruitment
processes in the country, including civil service exams, with the help of scribes.
People with disabilities in other countries including Pakistan, Kenya-Have been successfully
serving as judges in the high courts and subordinate courts.(
https://www.masslive.com/news/2019/09/can-a-blind-juror-serve-in-massachusetts-
massachusetts-sjc-to-hear-case.html )
A 31 – year old Brahmananda Sharma who lost his vision when he was 22. He hails from
Bhilwara (Rajastan) and studied in government school and cleared Rajasthan Judicial Services
Exam in 2013 at first attempt.( https://counterview.org/2018/05/18/judges-with-a-vision-entry-
of-visually-handicapped-into-judicial-system-must-be-welcomed/ )

d. Deprivation of the liberty of Sadhin Talukder-

According to article 32 of the Constitution of Oikkobhumi every person shall have the
protection of right to personal liberty. According to the fact of this case, our petitioner Sadhin
Talukder being a law graduate couldn't sit for his desired exam just for being a person with
physical disability which clearly violates fundamental right of personal liberty enshrined in
Oikkobhumi's Constitution. Appreciating the complexity of orientations toward people with
physical disabilities can provide insights into the experience of this form of stigmatization and
inform policies and laws for combating bias (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=discrimination+against+disabled+individuals&oq=#d=gs_qabs&t=1
662558397981&u=%23p%3DN14fUkmj6ocJ )

e. OJSC Rules, 2007 violates Constitutional Supremacy –

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of Oikkobhumi. The Constitution

has sanctity over everything in the realm.
This position is called Constitutional
Supremacy. ( https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assignmentpoint.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/Constitutional-Supremacy-Of-Bangladesh.doc&hl=en_US ).

Constitutional supremacy embolden judiciary in scrutinizing the constitutionality of any

legislation made by the parliament and can declare law void on the grounds of inconsistency
with the constitution. (https://www.thedailystar.net/judicial-role-in-constitutional-supremacy-
6730).

Article 7(2) runs for the Supremacy of the Constitution as “This Constitution is, as the solemn
expression of the will of the people, the supreme law of the Republic, and if any other law
inconsistent with this Constitution that
other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”. The Supreme Court of America
openly and clearly invalidated an act of congress as unconstitutional for the first time in
Marbury v Madison case [1 Crunch 137;2L. Ed.60(1803)]. (
https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison )

In this case of Sadhin Talukder, OJSC denied Sadhin Talukder of being incapable for sitting in
OJSC exam due to his disability under Rule 5(4) of the OJSC Rules, 2007, where the
Constitution of Oikkobhumi gives equal rights on the ground of employment for all of her
citizen in Article 29(1). This rule 5(4) of OJSC Rules, 2007 clearly inconsistent with Article
29(1) of the Constitution of Oikkobhumi so it shall be void and definitely unconstitutional.

f. OJSC’s refusal to admit people with disabilities into judicial service is

undoubtedly unconstitutional –

States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other
measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms
of exploitation, violence and abuse, including their gender-based aspects (UNCRPD article
16). Many States are gradually engaging in improving their justice systems for the disabled
persons. For example, Chile has repealed the prohibition against blind and deaf persons to
become magistrates. Likewise, the House of Federation in Ethiopia ruled against a customary
practice which prohibited blind persons from acting as judges and ordered courts to provide for
necessary accommodations for disabled judges to effectively perform their duties. In Peru,
reasonable accommodations are made available for blind candidates participating in the
examinations to become judges or prosecutors. In Germany, there are approximately seventy
visually impaired judges currently serving at different levels of judiciary including the highest
judicial office. Countries like India, Pakistan and the USA have appointed blind judges.(
https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/news/can-we-make-our-justice-system-disabiled-
friendly-1825993)
According to paragraph 5 of this fact, on January 03,2022 Sadhin Talukder submitted his
application accordingly for appealingly for appearing for the OJSC examination and received
an admit. However, when he requested for an aid of a scribe to sit for the exam, it was rejected
on the ground that. According to paragraph 6 of this fact, OJSC stated that visually and
physically
impaired individuals are not qualified for appointment to the position of Judge under the OJSC
Rules,2007. On the other hand, the constitution of Oikkobhumi protects the basic human rights
of its citizens regardless of gender ,class,religion,race and etc. People with disabilities are
equally treated and entitled to all fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution. Article 29(I) of Oikkobhumi constitution guarantees equal opportunity for all
citizens regarding employments. In other words, an individual with physical disability shall
have the same right of employment like others. From this point of view, the refusal to admit
people with disabilities into judicial service by OJSC is clearly contradictory to the
fundamental right of a citizen enumerated in the Oikkobhumi Constitution.
According to section 26 of the Constitution any law or provision on rule that is inconsistent
with the fundamental rights shall be void and unconstitutional. The decision made by OJSC of
refusing the people with Disabilities from being admitted into judicial service under sub rule 4
of rule 5 of OJSC rules is violative to fundamental right of a citizen, so, this is
unconstitutional.