Bombay High Court
Nandita Ravindra Tripathi vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 10 February, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1/3 27-WP 709.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 709 OF 2022
Nandita Ravindra Tripathi vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or
directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. A. Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr.Rishikesh Ladekar,
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for respondent No.1.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 10/02/2022
Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate
for petitioner and Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
3. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance
upon the provisions made a new in the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly those in Section
2(y), 3(5), 33 and 34 in order to support the contention
that the petitioner having a bench mark disability, is
entitled to assert her right of reasonable accommodation
in government jobs including the job of the District Judge.
KOLHE
2/3 27-WP 709.2022
4. According to Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1, even though new Act has come into
force, which is Act of 2016, insofar as the position of the
High Court is concerned, there is no change in the law
and it continues to govern the issue in the same manner
as it did during the regime of previous Act i.e. the
Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
5. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for respondent
No.1, placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the
cases of Sushil K. Sonawane vs. Maharashtra Public
Service Commission and others, Writ Petition No.1784 of
2015, decided on 14/10/2015, Hemant s/o Sadanand
Surve vs. The State of Maharasthra and others, Civil Writ
Petition No.5151 of 2000 decided on 03/10/2000 and
Mrs.Nandita Dubey/Tripathi vs. The State of Maharasthra
and another, Writ Petition No.7824 of 2007, decided on
28/07/2016 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Vikash Kumar vs. Union Publice Service
Commission and others (2021) 5 Supreme Court Cases
370.
6. At this stage, Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior
Advocate, upon instructions, seeks leave of the Court to
withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh
representation to the respondent No.1 based upon the
KOLHE
3/3 27-WP 709.2022
change in position of law. He makes a request for supply
of copies of the judgments relied upon by respondent
No.1.
7. We request Mr.Mirza, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, to supply the same to learned Senior
Advocate and Mr.Mirza in response, graciously submits
that the request has been complied with immediately.
8. In view of the above, leave is granted to the
petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty as prayed
for.
9. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:10.02.2022
17:40
KOLHE
