Showing posts with label Appointment of Persons with Disabilities on Reserved Vacancies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Appointment of Persons with Disabilities on Reserved Vacancies. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Mukesh Sharma Vs DSSSB & Anr. | Case No. 2220/1011/2021/06/1201-1203 | Dated: 11/08/21

 In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2220/1011/2021/06/1201-1203 Dated: 11/08/21

In the matter of:

Sh. Mukesh Sharma
(Email:mukesh31881@gmail.com)                          ………Complainant

Versus

The Chairman, 
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                                          ........... Respondent No.1

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.           .............Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing: 10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Biju Raj, Dy. Secretary, DSSSB on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Sh. S. Nand Kumar, S.O, DoE on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

Sh. Mukesh Sharma, a person with 100% hearing impairment filed a complaint vide email dated 29.05.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that DSSSB vide advertisement dated 12.05.2021 advertised the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) wherein no reservation was granted to persons with hearing impairment.

2. The case was taken up with the respondents vide show cause notice dated 08.06.2021.  Respondent No.1 vide their reply dated 05.07.2021 submitted that Board makes recruitment as per the requisitions received from the indenting departments.  The indenting department maintains the reservation roster pertaining to all categories including PwD Category candidates and accordingly send the requisition to DSSSB.  It was further submitted that Directorate of Education has also certified that the requirements of RPwD Act, 2016 and policy relating to reservation for persons with the benchmark disabilities have been taken care of while sending requisition. Thus, Respondent No. 2 is responsible for identification and fixation of reserved categories posts and any anomaly that arises with respect to this aspect. 

3. A hearing was scheduled on 10.08.2021.  Vide submission dated 09.08.2021, Respondent No. 2 submitted that the requisition of 11,139 posts of TGT/TGT (MIL) was sent to DSSSB vide Letter dated 26.06.2020 and additional 926 posts on 14.01.2021 (online) and hard copy on 17.02.2021. The department completed the process of forwarding the requisition to DSSSB by 14.01.2021 (Online), whereas the notification No.38-16/2020- DD-III, issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment dated 04.01.2021 catered for some additional relaxation for some categories of PwDs.  Regarding non-implementation of notification dated 04.01.2021 in the current requisition, it was submitted that the requisition was sent to the DSSSB on 26.06.2020 i.e. well before the issue of said notification. The requisition of additional posts of TGT/TGT(MIL) was sent to DSSSB on 14.01.2021 (Online) & hard copy on 17.02.2021. 

4. The case was discussed and deliberated upon with the representatives of DSSSB and Directorate of Education in the absence of the complainant, notwithstanding for whatsoever reasons, he was not present. 

5. Plea of the Directorate of Education was that even as per the latest Notification No.38-16/2020- DD-III dated 04.01.2021 issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, post of TGT would not be suitable for 100% hearing impaired PwDs. It was further added that there can be some relaxation in this category but it will be very difficult for the person with 100% hearing impairment to communicate with the students in the class. Hence, this category was not included in the advertisement. 

6. The court accepts the plea of Directorate of Education and advises the complainant  to  apply for the post suitable for him. 

7. The complaint was disposed of.

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of August, 2021.  


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
                                State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities




  


Monday, February 22, 2021

Akhand Pratap Singh Vs. Secretary DSSB & Anr. | Case No. 1763/1014/2020/01/3040-42 | Dated :22/02/2021

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1763/1014/2020/01/3040-42 Dated:22/02/2021

In the matter of:

Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh,
Kh. 13/10 & 13/1,
H.No. 13, UGF, Gali No.14,
Bhagat Colony, West Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
(E-mail-akhandpartapsingh@gmail.com)      … Complainant

Versus

The Secretary, 
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 
FC-18, Institutional Area, 
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092. .......Respondent No.1

The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.          ......Respondent No.2


Date of hearing: 19.02.2021

Present: Sh. Akhand Partap Singh, Complainant,  

Sh. Biju Raj, Deputy Director and Sh. Satish Kanojia, Section Officer, DSSSB on behalf of respondent No.1

Sh. R.K. Kalra, Asstt. Law Officer, SDMC on behalf of respondent No.2

ORDER

        The complainant, a person with 40% post burn contracture of left hand with deformity vide his complaint dated 27.01.2021 submitted a complaint regarding his pending candidature for the post of Asstt. Law Officer in SDMC.

2. A hearing was scheduled on 19.02.2021.  Representative of the respondent No.1 informed that the complainant had filed an O.A. before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in this case and a hearing has been scheduled for 23.02.2021. 

3. In view of the submission of the respondent No.1, the case is kept in abeyance till the Hon’ble CAT herd the case and final verdict is passed.  Final verdict of the Hon’ble CAT be submitted to this Court by the parties.

4. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 22nd day of February, 2021.  


(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Friday, May 10, 2019

Suo Motu Vs. Dean Maulana Azad Medical College | Case No. 802/1011/2019/03/2203-2204 | Dated: 09.05.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002
Phone: 011-23216003-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]


Case No. 802/1011/2019/03/2203-2204                          Dated: 09.05.2019

In the matter of:

Suo-Motu

Versus
Dean
Maulana Azad Medical College
GNCT of Delhi
2-Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi-110002                                            ...............Respondent

Date of Hearing:    08.05.2019

ORDER 

All Pr. Secretaries/ Spl. Secretaries/ Additional Secretaries/ HoDs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi were requested vide letter No. 5/1593/2017-Wel/CD/155-316 dated 05.05.2017 to provide information relating to appointment of persons with disabilities against reserved vacancies in a prescribed format in respect of their Departments and all the establishments such as Offices/Organisations/ Institutions etc. under their control by 31.05.2017.

2.       As per the Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 30612/39/2014-Estt (Res.) dated 22-25th May, 2015 and directions of Supreme Court  of India, a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog of reserved vacancies was to be conducted.

3.       In Column 6 of the format enclosed with letter dated 01.06.2017 of the respondent, no vacancies were filled in Group ‘A’, Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ but in Column 7, appointment of persons with disabilities was indicated.  It was also observed that against 80 vacancies filled in Group ‘D’ posts, only one person with disability was appointed and the backlog was not indicated.

4.  The respondent was advised to clarify the position alongwith relevant documents in a hearing scheduled on 15.04.2019.  Vide letter dated 13.04.2019, the respondent clarified that recruitment to Group ‘A’ posts comprising Doctors/Faculty is done by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and lone post of Deputy Director is filled by the Services Department.  Recruitment to the Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts is also done by the Services Department.  Therefore ‘not applicable’ has been mentioned in column 6 meant for indicating the number of vacancies filled since 1996 and hence backlog of reserved vacancies is not applicable. 

5.       It was further submitted that the appointment to Group ‘D’ posts has been discontinued since 2006 after implementation of the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission.  The representatives of the respondent however did not readily have the information whether the vacancies of MTS will now be filled up by MAMC or will be communicated to Services Department for filling up.  They were advised that if the vacancies are to be filled by MAMC, special recruitment drive should be conducted and if the vacancies are to be intimated to Services Department, they should be requested to ensure that reservation for persons with disabilities is provided against those vacancies. 

6.       Vide letter dated 30.04.2019, Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Head of Office, MAMC informed that Services Department has been informed that as the Group ‘D’ posts have been converted into Group ‘C’ and all appointments to Group ‘C’ posts are done by Services Department/ Health & Family Welfare Department, while filling up the post of MTS the directions of this court should be complied with. 

7.       It is observed from the information furnished by the respondent as on 31.03.2017 that 80 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts were filled up.  Out of them one person with locomotor disability was appointed.  Thus, there is a backlog of one vacancy each for persons with blindness and low vision and one for persons with hearing impairment.  In view of this, the respondent is directed to intimate Services Department to reserve and fill up the backlog of one vacancy each by appointment of persons with blindness/ low vision and hearing impairment respectively whenever next recruitment takes place.

8.       Action taken be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

9.       The complaint is disposed of with the above directions.

10.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 8th day of May, 2019.

  


                                                                   (T.D. Dhariyal)
                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities





Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Ajit Kumar & 8 others Vs. DSSSB | F.No.717/1014/2019/02/929-930 | Dated: 19.02.2019




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]


F.No.717/1014/2019/02/929-930                    Dated: 19.02.2019

In the matter of:

1.        Sh. Ajit Kumar (ajitkumar.kumar1989@gmail.com),
2.        Ms. Sujata,
3.        Sh. Vivek,
4.        Ms. Geeta,
5.        Sh. Nitin Kumar,
6.        Sh. Vinod Kumar,
7.        Sh. Parveen Kumar,
8.        Sh. Mahesh Kumar, and
9.        Sh. Munazza.                                                     ……Complainants

Versus

The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
F-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                                              ..…Respondent
         

ORDER

The above named complainants, Sh. Ajit Kumar and 08 others personally appeared on 04.02.2019 and submitted a representation stating that DSSSB vide Notice no. 760 dated 01.02.2019 have published the cut off marks for uploading e-dossiers.  As per para 4 of the said notice, 93 vacancies have been shown for PH (OH), whereas SDMC vide their letter no. D/ADE/Admn./ Edu./HQ/SDMC/2018/1435 dated 14.09.2018 had informed DSSSB that 133 vacancies were reserved for PH (OH).  The said letter was also referred to in para 13 of the common order dated 09.10.2018 in case no. 44/1011/2017/11 & six other cases. 

2.       The complainants requested that e-dossiers of PH (OH) be called for 133 vacancies for the post of Teacher (Primary) instead of 93 and cut off marks be determined accordingly.

3.       Secretary, DSSSB was requested to give an audience to Sh. Ajit Kumar & others and do the needful under intimation to this Court before 14.02.2019.

4.       Secretary, DSSSB vide letter No. 2(164)/P&P/DSSSB/2017/ 1186/1077 dated 12.02.2019 has informed that 40 unfilled vacancies of post code 70/09 has been added to the post code 01/18 and accordingly the vacancies of OH category have now been increased to 133 (93+40) and a corrigendum dated 11.02.2019 has also been issued. 

5.       In light of prompt action by Secretary, DSSSB, the matter is disposed off and closed.

6.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of February, 2019.
  

(T.D. Dhariyal)
           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Friday, June 1, 2018

Sanyogeeta Vs. Pr. Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare | Case No. 55/1014/2017/12/7570-71 | Dated: 31.05.2018




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 55/1014/2017/12/7570-71               Dated: 31.05.2018

In the matter of:

Ms. Sanyogeeta,
H.No. 501, Nangal thakran,
Delhi – 110 039                                                     ……….Complainant            

Versus

The Pr. Secretary,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
9th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi – 110 002.                                          …………Respondent


          Present:              Complainant on telephone
                                     
                                      Sh. Neeraj Acharya,
                                      Dealing Asstt. on behalf of respondent

          Date of hearing:    30.05.2018

ORDER

      The above named complainant, a person with more than 90% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated nil received on 05.12.2017 submitted that she applied for the post of Public Health Nurse (PHN), Post Code 39/14 under PH category under Roll No. 83000155.  She was also in the merit list of DSSSB and was first rank holder. She further submitted that out of 70 candidates, 61 candidates have already joined and the remaining 9 candidates have not been given the offer of appointment whereas verification of documents has already been completed.  She requested that she should be allowed to join from the date the other candidates joined so that she gets the other connected benefits like promotion, increment etc. on equal basis with others.

2.    The complaint was taken up with the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) vide notice dated 19.12.2017 followed by reminders dated 29.01.2018 and 13.02.2018 and a hearing on 28.03.2018.  During the hearing, the complainant submitted that her dossier was forwarded to the Department of Health & Family Welfare.  She visited that department multiple times and also submitted a number of representations.  However, neither she has received any response nor the offer of appointment.

3.    Sh. Ashish Mohan, Joint Secretary and Sh. Manish Jain, Dy. Secretary, who appeared on behalf of DSSSB, submitted a report dated 26.03.2018.  As per the said report, the complainant having Roll No. 83000155 has been provisionally selected for the post of Public Health Nurse under the post code 39/14.  Her dossier had also been forwarded to User Department i.e. Health and Family Welfare Department, GNCT of Delhi on 24.07.2017.  They have also received the acknowledgement for the same from that Department.  Therefore, the DSSSB has no role to play in this matter anymore.  In view of this, DSSSB was removed from the array of respondents and Principal Secretary (Health & Family Welfare), GNCT of Delhi was impleaded as respondent and was directed to submit by 30.04.2018  para-wise comments on the complaint and reasons as to why the complainant had not been allowed to join the post of Public Health Nurse, subject to the complainant completing the necessary formalities and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 10.05.2018.

4.    As none appeared on behalf of the respondent, Pr. Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) was requested to look into the matter personally and have the version of the Department submitted by 21.05.2018 so that the complaint could be disposed off.  The complainant deposed on telephone and requested for an early action.

5.    On the next date of hearing on 30.05.2018, the representative of the Department of Health & Family Welfare submitted a letter dated 30.05.2018 as per which, the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble CAT as an application filed by Sh. Sagar Kumar & Others is pending in the Hon’ble CAT.  The next date hearing in that case is 17.07.2018.  It has further been mentioned that Ms. Sanyogeeta, the complainant in this case has also filed a case before the Hon’ble CAT vide O.A. No. 4176/2016 and hence this case is also subjudice and the next date of hearing is 06.07.2018 and therefore the Department will act as per the directions of the Hon’ble CAT.

6.    The complainant was informed about the contents of the letter dated 30.05.2018 of the respondent on telephone.  She confirmed that she has filed O.A. No. 4176 of 2016 before the Hon’ble CAT.  However, she did not mention it in the complaint, which she should have done.

7.    The representative of the respondent informed that appointment of some candidates recommended by DSSSB including the complainant, have been held up as the Hon’ble CAT has directed that Sh. Sagar Kumar & Others who are contractual Public Health Nurses, shall not be removed from the service till further orders.

8.    As the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble CAT, it will not be appropriate to continue the proceedings in this court, However, the complainant as well as the respondent are advised to inform the Hon’ble CAT on the next date of hearing about the fact that the complainant has been appointed against a reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities.

9.    The complaint is disposed off.

10.   Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this  31st  day of May, 2018.    

(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Friday, February 23, 2018

Sanjeevan Bharti Vs. DSSSB | Case No. 4/1350/2016-Wel./CD/5505-06 | Dated: 22.02.2018




In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1350/2016-Wel./CD/5505-06                          Dated: 22.02.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Sanjeevan Bharti
RZ-61 A, I Block
West Sagarpur,
New Delhi-110046                                             ................ Complainant
                                          Versus                         
The Chairman,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma
Delhi-110092                                                     ………...…Respondent
Date of Hearing  19.02.2018
Present:              None for Complainant
Sh. N. Venkataraman, ASO and Sh. Hari Kishan Sr. Asstt. on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with 75% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 27/28.07.2016 submitted that the respondent advertised vacancies for the post of TGT vide advertisement No. 02/2012. Three vacancies of TGT (English) Male (Post Code 106/12) were reserved for persons with disabilities (OH-01 VH-02). The Tier-I examination was conducted on 28.12.2014 and he scored 82.05 % marks with Roll No. 42000002.  As per the  Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) Public Notice dated 12.02.2016, he was ranked at 21 in the Open Merit list among all the candidates of all categories and he was the only candidate with disability who qualified in the said examination.  During the document verification on 05.02.2016, he was declared not eligible for the reason that he passed CTET after cutoff date.  He further submitted that he qualified the elementary stage CTET twice on 23.01.2014 & 09.10.2014, which was before the date of  examination. 

2.      The complainant also cited an order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities dated 21.04.2016  in case No. 4884/1014/2015. In the said Order, CCPD directed the National Institute of Virology, ICMR to consider the appointment of Sh. Dhananjay S. Survase, the complainant in that case to the post of Library & Information  Assistant by relaxing the standards. 

3.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 12.08.2016 followed by reminders dated 10.10.2016, 29.01.2016.  The respondent vide letter dated 16.12.2016 informed that the candidature of the complainant was rejected for having qualified CTET after cutoff date. The eligibility of the candidate in all respect including his CTET qualification is required to be decided as on the crucial date i.e. 15.06.2012.  Vide another letter dated 12.01.2017, the respondent submitted that the Board was considering the proposal for giving one time relaxation to all such candidates who qualified CTET after the cutoff date but are otherwise eligible in all other aspects so that remaining vacancies in some of the post codes can be filled up where qualified candidates are not available in the corresponding merit list.  The case of the complainant would be decided as per the outcome of the decision in the said proposal.

4.      The response of the respondent was sent to the complainant for his rejoinder vide letter dated 01.03.2017 which was received back undelivered due to some error in the address.  Hearings were thereafter held on 16.11.2017, 18.12.2017 & 29.01.2018.  None appeared on behalf of the respondent on those dates. 

5.      It was observed that the complainant was the only candidate with locomotor disability who was called for document verification. He had  qualified CTET examination on 16.02.2014, the result of which was declared on  21.03.2014 and the last date for receipt of applications seeking inclusion of names was 30.08.2014 as per a communication dated 12.08.2014 of DSSSB.  Additionally, the complainant would not be eligible even for applying for the post in future as he had become overage. In light of these facts, this court advised that if no other person  with locomotor disability who had qualified CTET before the cutoff date was available, it would be worthwhile to recommend the complainant for appointment in the light of Para 22 of DoP&T OM dated 29.12.2005  which provides for relaxation of standard of suitability in respect of persons with disabilities vide RoP dated 31.01.2018.  As no one appeared on behalf of the respondent on 16.11.2017, 18.12.2017 and 29.01.2018, reason as to why the concerned officers did not comply with the notice of hearing dated 27.10.2017, RoP dated 16.11.2017 and 26.12.2017 was sought and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 19.01.2018.

6.      During the hearing on 19.01.2018, the representatives of the respondent submitted a letter dated 16.02.2018 which says that at the time of filing reply dated 12.01.2017, the competent authority of DSSSB was of the opinion to moot a proposal for seeking one time relaxation in date of passing of CTET for all such candidates in general particularly for the post codes, for which there were difficulties in filling up of vacancies due to non-availability of  candidates with CTET before cut off date who were otherwise eligible.  However, the proposal for grant of relaxation in CTET did not materialise and therefore no candidate was given relaxation.  It seems that the suggestion for relaxation has not been examined in consultation with the Directorate of Education, which is the indenting Department and the appointing authority.  The representative of the respondent submitted that they may be given some time to examine  DoP&T’s instructions and to consult Directorate of Education for relaxation in date of passing CTET.  They also stated that the RoP dated 16.11.2017 was not received by the concerned Branch and therefore, the matter could not be examined.

7.  Although DoP&T’s instructions of 2005 as well as Para 11 of the latest instructions issued vide OM No. 36035/02/2017-Estt. (Res.) dated 15.01.2018 provide for relaxation of standard of suitability, in the light of the fact that the complainant possessed all the qualifications including CTET before the date of examination and a reserved vacancy for persons with locomotor disability has remained unfilled, it is recommended that  DSSSB should refer the matter to Education Department, GNCTD for a sympathetic consideration of the complainant for appointment to the post of TGT (English) by relaxing the date of passing CTET.  A positive decision to appoint him will also enable Department of Education to fill up a reserved vacancy by a well qualified person with disability.  The decision on the recommendation be taken within three months from the date of receipt of this Order and this court be informed as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

8.      The matter is disposed off accordingly.

9.  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21st day of February, 2018.     

                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal )
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


View the digitally signed PDF order here:     




Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Ashwani Gupta Vs. Dte of Social Welfare | Case No. 4/1268/2016-Wel/CD/3696-98 | Dated: 02.01.2018



In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1268/2016-Wel/CD/3696-98                   Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashwani Gupta
Room No. 6, FAS Branch,
Department of Social Welfare,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                                   .……… Complainant     
                                                      Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Social Welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate,
New Delhi-110002.                                                     …...…Respondent


ORDER

               The above named complainant a person with 90% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 04.05.2016 submitted that he acquired disability in a bomb blast. He joined Social Welfare Department in June 2005 in the post of Investigator as a person with disability as per the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on compensatory ground.   

2.           The complainant alleged that he was not considered for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother / Matron alongwith 12 investigators / Jr. Matrons who were promoted vide order dated 31.05.2013 although he was eligible and there were no other investigators with disability senior to him.  As per DoP&T OM No. 36035/3/2004/Estt./Res dated 29th December, 2005 the department is required to maintain a roster for effecting reservation for persons with disabilities.  However,  neither  any roaster is maintained nor the procedure is followed  for making such promotions.  He further submitted that the Department created 6 new posts of House Father / Mother / Matron.  As he had completed  five years service in 2010, he became eligible for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother and Matron and  to the next post of Welfare Officer on completion of 10 years of regular service.   He represented to the Department on 07.9.2015 and also submitted three reminders but had not received any response till date of his complaint. The complainant further added that the Department conducted three DPCs in 1991, 1999 and in 2013 with  long gap in between whereas as per the instructions, DPC should be held every year. 

3.           The complainant prayed that he should be considered for promotion from the date of his eligibility at the earliest as he was suffering financial loss as well as losing seniority.

4.           The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 16.05.2016 followed by reminders dated 15.06.2016 and 30.06.2016.
 
5.           The respondent vide letter dated 28.06.2016 informed that the tentative seniority list had been issued for circulation for promotion to the post of House Father / Mother / Matron for receiving objections, if any.  Thereafter, the process for promotion would  be started after finalizing the seniority list.  The respondent vide letter dated 6th January, 2017 submitted a status report as per which the APARs in respect of four Investigators / Jr. Matrons including the complainant for the year  2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16 were not available and the concerned  officers had been directed to get the APARs.  The process of promotion was  already under process and further action would  be taken on receiving the APARs. 

6.           The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 27.06.2017 requested for fixing a hearing in the case so that the same is disposed  of.  

7.           A hearing was scheduled on 24.08.2017.  During the hearing the representative of the respondent submitted an action taken report dated 23.08.2017 as per which the complainant  was promoted to the post of House Father vide Office order dated 04.08.2017. According to respondent,  the grievance of the complainant stood redressed.

8.           While the complainant confirmed that he had been promoted to the post of House Father, he submitted that his grievance still remained to be re-addressed in as much as he should have been promoted in the year 2010 when he become eligible for the post of House Father on completion of five years of regular service in the post of Investigator.  According to him, as per the instructions, every year a DPC should be held.  The first DPC after 2010 was held in the year 2013 and therefore, he should have been considered for promotion by the DPC held in 2013 against the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities as Point No. 1 of the roster is to be reserved for persons with disabilities and he is the senior most Group ‘C’ employee with disability.   He also produced a copy of roster in respect of Group`C’ posts for direct recruitment.

9.           It was observed that as per Recruitment Rules notified vide Notification No. F. 21(13)/76-DSW/Estt. Dated 05.08.1988, the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron / Assistant Boarding/Supdt. in Directorate of Social Welfare are to be filled by promotion failing which by direct recruitment 100% from amongst Matron  & Investigator/Social Worker  with five years regular service in the grade.  The complainant completed five years regular service on 30.06.2010 and thus became eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron / Assistant Boarding / Supdt. in the year 2010. As per the copy of roster produced by the complainant, he was  at Sl. No. 15 and the first person with disability amongst Group `C’ employees. 

10.         As per Para 2(ii)  of DoP&T’s OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res) Dated 29th December’2005, reservation of three percent of the vacancies are required to be reserved for persons with disabilities in case of promotion to Group D and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment does not exceed 75%.

11.         As per Para 15 of the said OM, reservation for  persons with disabilities is to be computed based on a separate 100 points vacancy based reservation roster.  In the said 100-points roster, point No. 1, 34 and 67 are to be earmarked for persons with disabilities. This would be applicable till 18.04.2017 after which the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. 2016 provides for reservation of 4% vacancies.  It was, therefore observed that the complainant was entitled for consideration against point No. 1 of the roster for promotion by a DPC that was held after 30.06.2010.

12.         The representative of the respondent stated that he would have to look into the record in order to ascertain the availability of reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities, the details of the DPCs held after 30.06.2010 for the post of House Father and  whether the complainant could have been considered and promoted before 2017.  The respondent was advised to examine the matter and if it was found that the complainant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron etc. before 2017, the relevant DPCs may be reviewed and if he is found fit by the DPC,  action to anti-date his promotion may be taken in accordance with the extant rules and the instructions of DoP&T on the subject.   Respondent was directed to submit an action taken report to this Court within 60 days.
13.         On the next date of hearing on 07.11.2017, the representative of the respondent sought adjournment as the concerned Dy. Director was not well. 

14.         The respondent vide letter dated 04.12.2017  informed that the case file of the complainant was  being sent to the Services Deptt. to seek their comments / advice whether the complainant could be given promotion against the roster point reserved for persons with disabilities based on the DPC held in 2013.  On 06.12.2017, the representative of the respondent added during the hearing that the case file had already been sent to the Services Deptt. on 04.12.2017 and action as per their advice would  be taken at the earliest. 

15.         The complainant submitted that 14 Investigators were promoted to the post of House Father/ House Mother / Matron based on the DPC held in 2013.  There was no other person with disability in the feeder post and none was ever promoted against the reserved vacancy.  As he is the senior most person with disability, he was entitled to be promoted in 2013 against point  No. 1 of the Roster.  He also added that by doing so, no person would be adversely affected as a vacancy of House Father was kept unfilled on the directions of Hon’ble CAT. Therefore, his promotion should be anti-dated.

16.         Though the facts thus far made available, prima facie supported the case of the complainant  for his consideration in the DPC held in 2013, yet in order to be sure, the respondent was advised to submit the following information:

          (i)  Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled year-wise by promotion since 20th November, 1989 when the reservation in promotion within Group D, from Group D to Group C and within Group C was introduced by DoP&T vide OM No. 36035/8/89/Estt.(SCT) dated 20.11.1989 till 2012.
          (ii) Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled by promotion based on the DPC held in the year 2013.
         (iii) Whether any person with disability was ever promoted to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron against the reserved vacancy for persons  with disabilities between 20.11.1989 and 2013.
      (iv) A confirmation that no DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father/ House  Mother / Matron between the date the complainant became eligible for the promotion in 2010 and  2013.

17.    The respondent submitted the following information vide letter dated 21st December, 2017:

(i)Information Sought
Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled year-wise by promotion since 20th November, 1989 when the reservation in promotion within Group D from Group D to Group C and within Group C was introduced by DoP&T vide OM No. 36035/8/89/Estt.(SCT) dated 20.11.1989 till 2012

Information available as per record
From 20.11.1989
01

1990
02

1991
03 vacancies of 1989 (1) and 1990(2) were filled in 1991

1992
Nil

1993
Nil

1994
Nil

1995
01

1996
Same 01 vacancy of 1995

1997
01 vacancy of  1995-02 vacancy of 1997  Total =03


1998
Same 03 posts of 1995 (1)  & 1997 (2)

1999
03 posts of 1995 (1) and 1997 (2) were filled in 1999

2000
Nil

2001
Nil

2002
03

2003
Nil

2004
Nil

2005
Nil

2006
Nil

2007
Nil

2008
Nil

2009
Nil

2010
Nil

2011
Nil

2012
Nil
(ii)
Number of vacancies of House Father / House Mother / Matron filled by promotion based on the DPC held in the year 2013.

12
(iii)
Whether any person with disability was ever promoted to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron against the reserved vacancy for persons  with disabilities between 20.11.1989 and 2013
Nil
(iv)
A confirmation that no DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father/ House  Mother / Matron between the date the complainant became eligible for the promotion in 2010 & 2013.
No DPC was held for promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron between 2010 & 2013

18.         From the above table it is not clear whether the respondent filled up 17 vacancies of House Father/ House Mother / Matron or 06 vacancies from 20.11.1989 till the year 1999.  Thereafter 12 vacancies were filled in the year 2013. Thus, even if only 6 vacancies were filled till 1999, by the time the complainant became eligible in 2010, the roster had moved to 9th point and one vacancy was required to be earmarked for persons with disabilities.  Admittedly the complainant became eligible for promotion to the post of House Father/House Mother / Matron in accordance with the relevant RRs notified by Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in the year 2010 on completion of 5 years of regular service in the post of Investigator.  The complainant was the first and senior most person with disability to be considered for promotion to the said post.  As the first DPC was held in the year 2013, the complainant had a claim to be considered for promotion in that year  against point number 1 of the roster.  It is thus a clear case of deprivation of the entitlement of the complainant as he was considered and promoted only in August 2017.

19.         It  will be worthwhile to discuss the relevant instructions even at the cost of repetition  before making my recommendation.  DoP&T vide OM 36035/8/89-Estt.(Set) Dated 20.11.1989 decided that when promotions are being made within Group D, Group `D’ to `C’ and within Group `C’, reservation will be provided for three categories of disabilities namely Visually Handicapped (VH), Hearing Impaired (HI) and Orthopaedically Handicapped(OH).  The applicability of reservation would however, be limited to the promotions being made to those posts that are identified as being capable of being filled / held by appropriate category of disability.  Further, each of the three categories of persons with disabilities would be allowed reservation at 1% each. 

20.         DoP&T consolidated the instructions on reservation for persons with disabilities and issued the same vide OM No. 36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res) dated 29th December 2005. The relevant provisions of  Para 2, 13 and 15 of the said OM are reproduced as below:

“2.    Quantum of Reservation:

…………….(ii) Three percent of the vacancies in case of promotion to Group D,and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be reserved for persons with disabilities of which one per cent each .shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (Hi) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability.

13.     COMPUTATION OF RESERVATION: ……………all vacancies in promotion quota shall be taken into account while computing reservation in promotion in Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. Since reservation is limited to identified posts only and number of vacancies reserved is computed on the basis of total vacancies (in identified posts as well as unidentified posts), it is possible that number of persons appointed by reservation in an identified post may exceed 3 per cent.

15.  EFFECTING RESERVATION - MAINTENANCE OF ROSTERS:

 (a) All establishments are required to maintain separate 100-point reservation roster registers in the format given in Annexure II for determining / effecting reservation for the disabled - one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'C' posts filled by promotion, Group 'D' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group 'D' posts filled by promotion.

(b) Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks, comprising the following points: 1st Block - point No.1 to point No.33 2nd Block - point No. 34 to point No.66,  3rd Block - point No.67 to point No. 100..

(c) Points 1, 34 and 67 of the roster shall be earmarked reserved for persons with disabilities - one point for each of the three categories of disabilities. The head of the establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1, 34 and 67 will be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts.
(d) All the vacancies in Group C posts falling in direct recruitment quota arising in the establishment shall be entered in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at point no. 1 is not identified for the disabled or the head of the establishment considers it desirable not to fill it up by a disabled person or it is not possible to fill up that post by the disabled for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 33 shall be treated as reserved for the disabled and filled as such. Likewise a vacancy falling at any of the points from 34 to 66 or from 67 to 100 shall be filled by the disabled. The purpose of keeping points 1, 34 and 67 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy from 1 to 33, first available suitable vacancy from 34 to 66 and first available suitable vacancy from 67 to 100 by persons with disabilities.

(e) There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 33 is suitable for any category of the disabled. In that case two vacancies from 34 to 66 shall be filled as reserved for persons with disabilities. If the vacancies from 34 to 66 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 67 to 100. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried into the next block.

(t) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start.

(g) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block or two, discretion as to which category of the disabled should be accommodated first shall vest in the head of the establishment, who shall decide on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc.

(h) A separate roster shall be maintained for group C posts filled by promotion and procedure as explained above shall be followed for giving reservation to persons with disabilities. Likewise two separate rosters shall be maintained for Group D posts, one for the posts filled by direct recruitment and another for posts filled by promotion.”

21.         It is not disputed that the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron etc. are identified suitable for persons with locomotor disability to which the complainant belongs. It is also not in dispute that the promotion post is a Group `C’ post to which reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities is applicable.

22.         In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as brought out above, the course of action for the respondent seems very clear to mitigate  the impact of the deprivation suffered by the complainant and hence it is recommended that the DPC held for  promotion to the post of House Father / House Mother / Matron in the  year 2013 be reviewed and the complainant be considered against Point No. 1 of the  100 points reservation roster that should be  maintained for the  posts in Group `C’ without any further loss of time.   If the complainant  is found fit by the review DPC, he be promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of this order and this court be informed of the action take  as required under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.   It is further recommended that the complainant be considered for promotion to the next higher post(s)  based on his seniority as per his position in the review DPC. 

23.         A copy of this order is being forwarded to Pr.Secretary (Services), Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

24.         The matter is disposed of accordingly.

25.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 01st  day of January,  2018.                                               


                                                                                       (T.D. Dhariyal)
                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to: The Pr. Secretary (Services), Services Department, 7th Level, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.