Ms. Reshma Parveen Vs. Directorate of Education & Seven Others | Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84 | Dated: 31.12.2019

Introduction

In a significant stride toward inclusive education, the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi, issued a detailed and progressive order on December 31, 2019, in the matter of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Educational Authorities of NCT of Delhi (Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84). This case highlights the systemic gaps in the recruitment of Special Educators (SETs) in Delhi’s schools and underlines the urgent need to provide equitable education to children with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Notably, this order was subsequently referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others [W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017, decided on 28 October 2021], while addressing the critical issue of recruitment and deployment of Special Educators across India. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar relied on the findings and directions of the State Commissioner’s order to strengthen the national discourse on inclusive education.

Background of the Case
Ms. Reshma Parveen, a CTET-qualified Special Educator with a 58% locomotor disability and RCI registration, brought to the Court’s attention a critical implementation failure: despite a 2009 Delhi High Court direction requiring two Special Educators per school, most of Delhi’s 5700 government schools still do not have even one.

Her demands included:

• Permanent recruitment of at least two Special Educators (Primary) in each school.

• Immediate deployment of contractual or guest Special Educators as a stop-gap.

• Proper employment opportunities for trained Special Educators.

• Quality education access for children with disabilities.

Key Submissions from Respondents

Various agencies presented fragmented and incomplete responses:

• North DMC: Claimed recruitment was the South DMC's responsibility. 700 posts had been forwarded to DSSSB.

• Delhi Cantonment Board: Had only contractual Special Educators—none permanent.

• NDMC: Trained 38 teachers, but had no regular Special Education cadre.

• EDMC: Operating with 92 SETs across 354 schools, with cluster-model plans due to shortfall.

• Directorate of Education: No sanctioned posts at primary level, though 2048 SET posts exist at higher levels. SETs often deployed for cross-disability roles without RCI-sanctioned training.

• RCI: Objected to DoE's practice of deploying unqualified teachers across disability types, citing violation of Section 13 of the RCI Act.

• NCTE: Failed to respond to key questions regarding qualification and eligibility frameworks.

Expert Opinions and Key Observations

Recognizing the complexity and lack of a standard formula for teacher deployment, the State Commissioner Mr. Dhariyal convened consultations with education and disability experts. Highlights include:

• No clear norm exists on the required number of SETs per school.

• Disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios were recommended:

  • 1:8 for VI, HI, Cerebral Palsy

  • 1:5 for ID, ASD, SLD

  • 1:2 for Deafblind and multiple disabilities

• While the cluster model was viewed as a temporary fix, it was unanimously emphasized that RCI-approved qualifications (D.Ed. for primary, B.Ed. for higher levels) must be maintained.

• The system must treat SETs at par with general teachers, with the ability to teach all students.

Directions & Recommendations by the SCPD Court

The State Commissioner, Mr. TD Dhariyal invoking powers under Section 75 of the RPwD Act, issued wide-ranging, time-bound directives:

1. Creation of two SET posts per school, with specialization across all RCI-recognized disabilities.

2. Deployment strategy based on disability-wise student data and appropriate teacher-student ratios.

3. Conversion of general teaching posts into SET posts where feasible.

4. Establishment of resource centers in schools or clusters (within 2–3 km radius).

5. Reform of recruitment rules and service conditions to enable SETs to teach children with and without disabilities.

6. Curriculum reform:

   • NCTE to integrate compulsory modules on sign language, Braille, and inclusive pedagogy in B.Ed./D.Ed.

   • NCERT to provide online training on the Swayam platform.

7. Mandatory training for in-service teachers on disability inclusion.

8. Ministry of Education to issue model guidelines on inclusive education for replication nationwide.

On RCI’s concern, the State Commissioner clarified that RCI registration is not required for every teacher, but orientation and training in inclusive practices is essential for all.

Reference in Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017), explicitly referred to this 2019 order of the State Commissioner. The Apex Court recognized its evidentiary and policy value in demonstrating the gaps and practical measures needed to ensure educational rights of children with disabilities under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RPwD Act. The reference in a constitutional bench decision highlights the legal relevance and persuasive authority of orders passed by State Commissioners under Section 75 of the Act.

Conclusion and Impact

This comprehensive and well-reasoned order is a landmark in administrative jurisprudence on inclusive education. It not only addresses the staffing gaps in schools but also provides a blueprint for systemic reform in teacher training, resource allocation, and policy coordination across departments.

The State Commissioner’s reliance on multi-stakeholder consultation—from experts to implementing agencies—and the insistence on a rights-based, data-driven, and disability-specific strategy reflects the spirit of the RPwD Act and India's commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

As the order awaits compliance reports from authorities, it becomes an essential resource for disability rights advocates, policy makers, and educators seeking to ensure every child with a disability in Delhi—and across India—gets the education they are entitled to.

Read the order embedded below:

Devesh Sharma Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & 2 Ors | Case No. 1048/1014/2019/07/ 7726-7732 | Dated: 07.11.2019

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,

Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1048/1014/2019/07/ 7726-7732                           Dated: 07.11.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Devesh Sharma,

House no. 801/804 Raghunath Mandir

Sombazar, Habibat Pura, Najafgarh

New Delhi-110043.                                                  …..Complainant

Vs.

Registrar General

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,

Sher Shah Road,

New Delhi-110003.                                             ….Respondent No. 1

Medical Superintendent

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital

Baba Kharak Singh Marh,

Near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib,

Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi-110001.         …. Respondent no. 2

Medical Superintendent

Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital,

Jaffarpur New Delhi-110073                                 …..Respondent no. 3

Last date of hearing : 24.10.2019

Present:     Sh. Chaitanya Puri, advocate alongwith Sh. Sunil Lakhina and Sh. Govind Singh for respondent no. 1.

Dr. MD Singh, Consultant & Professor and Dr. B.K. Kundu, Officer I/c on behalf of respondent no. 2.

Dr. A.K. Singh, CMO (NFSG) for respondent no. 3.

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with low vision (40%) as per  the disability certificate no. 07/eye/2016 dated 16.01.2016 issued by Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital (RTRM Hospital), Jaffarpur, New Delhi-110073, vide his complaint dated 26.07.2019 submitted that he had been selected for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical) in PH /PwD (LV) category by High Court of Delhi.  He got offer of appointment for the said post and was instructed to have medical fitness examination in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (RML Hospital), Delhi.  The RML Hospital first considered him as general candidate because his disability category was not mentioned in the offer letter.  After checking him as general candidate without forming Medical Board, they assessed his visual disability as 30% and declared him unfit for the post.  Delhi High Court therefore did not give him the job because RML Hospital declared him unfit.  Before the medical examination at RML Hospital, he was also medically examined by the Indian Railways at their New Delhi Railway Hospital on 22/23 May and he was declared fit for the job under visually impaired category and his disability was assessed as 40%.

2.      The complaint was taken up under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “RPwD Act, 2016” with Registrar General, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Medical Superintendent, Dr. RML Hospital vide letter dated 02.08.2019.

3.      Dr. RML Hospital vide reply dated 20.08.2019 submitted that the letter dated 07.06.2019 of High Court of Delhi did not mention that the candidate had been selected under PwD category.  On examination, it was found that he has NIL visual acuity in right eye [only  perception of light in (PL) person] and 06/18 in the left eye.  As per DoPT’s guidelines on their website (URL//persmin.gov.in/ais1/Docs/Appendix-III.pdf.), “no specific standard of physical fitness other than visual acuity have been prescribed for examining candidates for non-gazetted appointments” and the vision should be 6/6 in the better eye, if it is NIL in the worse eye.  The complainant was found to have no improvement in visual acuity with glasses on a subsequent date after one month on 17.07.2019 and hence based on the above criteria, he was declared unfit.  The complainant showed the document that he had been selected under PwD category.   As per DoPT’s OM dated 29.12.2005, the Appointing Authority shall ensure that the candidate is eligible to get the benefit under PwD category and the percentage of disability should be 40% to avail the benefit of reservation.  The complainant was re-examined as a person with disability on 18.07.2019 and he was found to have visual disability of 30% as per the latest guidelines. The findings of the medical examination were conveyed to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and it has also been submitted that all appeals are to be referred to Ministry of Health.

4.      Joint Registrar (Estt.) vide letter dated 22.08.2019 informed that the complainant was examined by CMO, NFSG and In-charge Medical Examination-I, Dr. RML Hospital under general as well as visually impaired category but was found unfit for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical). 

5.      This Court referred the matter to the Medical Superintendent, RTRM Hospital for re-examining and re-assessment of the disability of Sh. Devesh Sharma, if considered necessary, vide this Court letter dated 02.09.2019 and Joint Registrar (Estt.), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was advised to keep a vacancy of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical) unfiled till the final decision on the percentage of disability of Sh. Devesh Sharma. 

6.      Dr. A.K. Singh, Chairman, Disability Board, RTRM Hospital vide letter dated 14.09.2019 informed that the complainant was examined on 16.01.2016 and his BCVA was 6/18 and finger counting at 2  meter in left eye and right eye respectively on the day of examination.  As per reference no. 16-18/97-NI dated 21.07.1999 of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, his visual impairment corresponds to category-I (40%).  However, as per the guidelines vide notification no. 16-09/2014-DD-III dated 04.01.2018 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the complainant with same visual acuity will fit in the “category II one eyed person” with 30% of disability.  In view of this, the committee has decided to issue a new certificate as per the RPwD Act, 2016 but before proceeding further, the complainant needs to be re-examined.  Chairman Medical Board also directed the complainant to report to the Hospital alongwith all examination reports done after the issuance of his disability certificate.

7.      During the hearing on 24.10.2019, Sh. Chaitanya Puri, advocate for Registrar General, Delhi High Court submitted that the complainant vide his email dated 21.10.2019 has informed that he has settled in Indian Railways and he would go for higher studies.  Therefore, he is not interested in doing the job in Delhi High Court for Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical).  He further submitted that in light of this, the complaint could be closed.  He further submitted that the vacancy circular was issued in the year 2019 by when the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act had come into force with effect from 19.04.2017 and the guidelines for assessment of specified disability and certification of disability had also been notified on 04.01.2018.  The last date of online application was 23.01.2019.  Therefore in any case, the complainant could have been covered by the new guidelines and not availed the benefit based on the disability certificate dated 16.01.2016. 

8.      The vacancy notice of 2019 also very clearly mentioned that:

“candidate belonging to persons with disability (PwD) category and suffering from disabilities, other than OL (one leg), BL (both leg), LV (low vision) or HH (hearing handicapped) of 40% or more shall be required to fulfil the criteria applicable for their respective categories and relaxation in age and marks shall be given to them as per their respective category only, if applicable.  Only such persons would be eligible for reservation under the quota reserved for persons with disability, who suffer from not less than 40% of relevant disability mentioned above in this notice”.

9.      He also clarified that the assessment and certification guidelines of 2018 are not being applied retrospectively as the vacancies were advertised in 2019.  Therefore, the guidelines applicable as in 2019 should necessarily cover the eligibility criteria in respect of persons with disabilities.

10.     Dr. A.K. Singh, CMO, NFSG on behalf of RTRM Hospital submitted that all the persons with disabilities who have earlier been issued permanent disability certificate are to be issued Unique Disability Identity (UDID) cards without examining the holder of the certificate of disability.  If the new guidelines are to be applied to such persons from the date the said guidelines were issued, then all the persons with visual impairment need to be re-examined before issuing UDID card, for which there are no instructions.  He sought a clarification as to what the Hospital should do.

11.     Even though the complainant has decided not to join the post in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it is important to examine the matter with reference to the provisions of the Act, the Rules made thereunder and the relevant instructions to ensure that the complainant is not deprived of his rightful entitlement and must be given the choice and opportunity to join the post without any fear or apprehension.  It is also important to put the doubts to rest as there could be many more such cases.  Hence, I consider it in the fitness of things and also in the interest of justice to go into the details and give my observations/findings rather than just close the matter. 

12.     From the submissions of the parties and a careful perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act, and Rules etc., the following are my findings/ observations:

I)       The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the RPwD Act, 2016) came into force on 19.04.2017 which repealed the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (PwD Act, 1995). 

II)       Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides that:

            “The Central Government shall notify guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person.”

III)      Guidelines for assessment of disability and certification after enactment of PwD Act, 1995 were issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India vide notification no. 16-18/97-NI (I) dated 01.06.2001.

IV)     The guidelines for assessing the extent of specified disability under the RPwD Act, 2016 were notified by the Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment  on 04.01.2018.

V)      The definition of ‘low vision’ was changed in the RPwD Act, 2016 and accordingly, the guidelines for certification of disabilities also got modified.  A comparison of the definition of ‘low vision’ in PwD Act, 1995 and in RPwD Act, 2016 and the corresponding guidelines for assessment and certification is given in the table mentioned below:

	PwD Act, 1995	RPwD Act, 2016
Definition of low vision (40%)	Person with low vision means “a person with impairment of visual functioning even after treatment or standard refractive correction but who uses or is potentially capable of using vision for the planning or execution of a task with appropriate assistive device.”	Person with low-vision “means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, namely: (i) visual acuity not exceeding 6/18 or less than 20/60 upto 3/60 or upto 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible corrections; or (ii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 40 degree up to 10 degree.”
Guidelines for assessing low vision (40%)	2001 Better eye  6/18 to 6/36 Worse eye  6/60 to NIL	2018 Better Eye 6/24 to 06/60 Worse Eye 6/24 to 6/60 (40%) Or Visual field less than 40 upto 20 degree around 50%

VI)     As per the disability certificate No. 07/Eye/2016 dated 16/1/2016, the complainant has been certified to have permanent low vision (40%).  The condition is not likely to improve and re-assessment of disability is not necessary. 

VII)    The definition of other disabilities like hearing impairment (‘deaf’ and ‘hard of hearing’) have also undergone changes in the RPwD Act, 2016.

VIII)    Section 57 of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides,

 “(1)     The appropriate Government shall designate persons, having requisite qualifications and experience, as certifying authorities, who shall be competent to issue the certificate of disability.

(2)       The appropriate Government shall also notify the jurisdiction within which and the terms and conditions subject to which, the certifying authority shall perform its certification functions. 

IX)      Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India notified the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017 on 15.06.2017.   

X)      Rule 18 (3) of the Rules provides as under:

“The medical authority shall, after due examination –

(i)        issue a permanent certificate of disability in cases where there are no chances of variation of disability over time in the degree of disability; or

(ii)       issue a certificate of disability indicating the period of validity, in cases where there is any chance of variation over time in the degree of disability.”

XI)      Rule 19 of the Rules provides,

                        “A person to whom the certificate issued under rule 18 shall be entitled to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible for persons with disabilities under schemes of the Government and of non-Governmental organizations funded by the Government.”

 XII)    Rule 20 of the said Rules, which is the most relevant provision in this case provides that:

                        “The certificate of disability issued under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) shall continue to be valid after commencement of the Act for the period specified therein.”

XIII)    Govt. of NCT of Delhi notified the Delhi RPwD Rules, 2018 on 28.12.2018.   The said Rules have the identical provision for issuance of certificate of disability as in the Central Rules.

XIV)   Govt. of NCT of Delhi circulated the medical authorities for assessment and certification of specified disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016 on 02.05.2019. 

XV)    In view of the fact that various activities to implement the provisions of RPwD Act, 2016, especially the certification part, were undertaken over a span of more than 2 years.  Thus, any person with disability in NCT of Delhi could be expected to get a certificate of disability under the RPwD Act, 2016 only after 02.05.2019.  It is likely that some persons in the same hospital may have got assessed and certified for their disabilities as per the old guidelines and some may have got the certificates under the new guidelines around 02.05.2019 or even after that date till the circular got disseminated to the concerned certified authorities. Therefore, it would not be reasonable at all to re-assess a person with disability possessing a certificate of permanent disability issued under the PwD Act, 1995 and the guidelines of 2001.

XVI)   Under the PwD Act, 1995, many persons with lesser extent of visual or other disabilities have already received the benefits. 

XVII)   The RPwD Act, 2016 or the Rules do not provide for withdrawing the benefits from such persons nor for their re-assessment of disability.  If one were to do that, the next issue would be the date from which the new definition should be applied to those who have already been certified.  In light of such complications and infructuous exercise that might follow, the Govt. has rightly provided in Rule 20 of the RPwD Rules 2017 that the certificates of disability issued under PwD Act, 1995 shall continue to be valid even after commencement of the RPwD Act, 2016.

XVIII) The vacancy notice of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi did not mention anything about the changed definition of ‘low vision’ or that the benefit of reservation would be applicable only to persons who are certified as persons with benchmark disabilities as per the changed definition and the new guidelines for certification.

XIX)    The communication sent to RML Hospital for medical fitness of the complainant should have mentioned that the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical) is identified for persons with ‘low vision’ and therefore, his medical fitness should be assessed accordingly.

XX)     If a post is identified for a person with ‘low vision’, a person with lesser extent of disability cannot be declared as medically unfit, irrespective of whether the post is reserved or not.  So, even if the complainant is treated to be having less than 40% visual impairment, as per the new guidelines, he cannot be declared medically unfit for the job.  That would be absolutely illogical. 

13.     In view of the above discussion, even though the complainant has submitted that he is not interested in the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical) in Delhi High Court (which may be out of fear), he should be informed that, if he so desires, he can join the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (Technical). 

14.     With regard to the request of Dr. A.K. Singh, CMO whether all the persons with visual impairment who were assessed in accordance with the guidelines of 2001, should be re-examined before issuing UDID cards, the answer is clearly in the negative. 

15.     Even though Rule 20 of the RPwD Rules, 2017 is very clear, it is recommended that the Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment should issue a suitable clarification to all the States/UT Administrations in this regard so that persons with disabilities in such situations are not unnecessarily inconvenienced and /or deprived of their entitlements.  Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi should also issue a clarification to all the Medical/Certifying Authorities in NCT of Delhi.

16.     This Court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act which is reproduced below:

“Whenever the State Commissioner makes a recommendation to an authority in pursuance of clause (b) of section 80, that authority shall take necessary action on it, and inform the State Commissioner of the action taken within three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation:

Provided that where an authority does not accept a recommendation, it shall convey reasons for non-acceptance to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities within the period of three months, and shall also inform the aggrieved person.”

17.     The complaint is disposed off.

18.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 7^th day of November, 2019.

                                                              (T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:-

1.	Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, 5th Floor, Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi – 110003. Email: secretaryda-msje@nic.in	For action on para 15.
2.	The Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 9th Level, A Wing I.P. Estate, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-110002.
3.	The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110002

Krishan Kumar Yadav Vs. The Secretary DSSSB | Case No. 1008/1014/2019/07/6155-6157 | Dated:27.09.2019

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,

Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1008/1014/2019/07/6155-6157                 Dated:27.09.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav

Village-Aghwaar, PO Deveri,

District-Mirzapur, UP-231001

Email : krishnakumyadav2015@gmail.com                ……Complainant

Versus

The Secretary

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board

FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma

Delhi-110092                                                              ..….Respondent

Last date of Hearing: 26.09.2019

Present: Sh. Balwant Singh, SO (Interview Cell) for respondent.

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 45% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 16.05.2019 which was received on 26.06.2019 from the Court of Chief Commissioner for persons with Disabilities, Govt. of India, submitted that he appeared in the recruitment examination conducted by DSSSB for Special Education Teacher, Post code 87/17 in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in July 2018.  He was among the 281 selected candidates.  The physical verification of e-dossier started on 03.05.2018.  However, he was not called by Department of Education for verification.  Directorate of Education informed that the DSSSB had not sent his e-dossier whereas DSSSB functionaries informed that his e-dossier had been forwarded to Directorate of Education.  280 selected candidates would be going for medical examination and be appointed in July 2019. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent under the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Act” with a copy to Director, Directorate of Education vide letter dated 05.07.2019. 

3.       Directorate of Education vide letter dated 18.07.2019 informed that they had not received the e-dossier of the complainant from DSSSB.  As soon as e-dossier was received, they would take necessary action.  As there was no response from DSSSB despite reminder dated 08.08.2019, a hearing was scheduled on 26.09.2019. 

4.       During the hearing, Sh. Balwant Singh, SO (Interview Cell) filed a written submission vide letter dated 25.09.2019 which reads as under:

“SUB: Ref: Case No.1008/1014/2019/07 (Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav Vs Secretary DSSSB)

Sir,

With reference to above cited subject, it is informed that the e-dossier of Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav could not be sent to Directorate of Education by Policy & Publication branch as Sh. Krishan Kumar Yadav had not uploaded his disability certificate along with his e-dossier, which was an essential document to consider his candidature as PH (VH) candidate.  Accordingly, an opportunity was given to him to upload the same and link was opened. He was informed through SMS/email to upload his PH (VH) certificate on web portal. In compliance of the same he uploaded his disability Certificate and his e-dossier has been sent to Directorate of Education through online mode on 24.09.2019 (copy of forwarding letter is enclosed). This is for your kind information and further necessary action please.

This issued with prior approval of Competent Authority.

Yours faithfully

Deputy Secretary

(Interview Cell)”

5.       He also clarified that Directorate of Education will now issue offer of appointment to the complainant after physical verification as the e-dossier has been forwarded to Directorate of Education.    

6.       The telephone number of the complainant was obtained from DSSSB and when he was contacted, he confirmed that he received an SMS about forwarding of his e-dossier to Directorate of Education.

7.       In view of the above, the complaint is disposed of.  However, as also recommended in the past, a quick response mechanism to the queries of candidates with disabilities should be put in place by DSSSB to avoid inconvenience to them and representations/complaints of this nature.

8.       A copy of this order be also sent to complainant’s email ID: krishnakumyadav2015@gmail.com.

9.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27^th day of September, 2019.

(T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to:

1.        Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054. : For information.

Radhey Shyam Nishad Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. | Case No. 754/1083/2019/02/3136-3138 | Dated:28.06.2019

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, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 754/1083/2019/02/3136-3138                          Dated:28.06.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Radhey Shyam Nishad

Dukh Haran House No. B-151,

Balbir Vihar, Kirari, Suleman Nagar,

Sultanpuri, C-Block, North West Delhi,

Delhi-110086.                                                             …….Complainant

                                          Versus                           

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi-110002.                                            ……...…Respondent no. 1

(Kind Attnt: Ms. Veditha Reddy, Dy. Commissioner

Smt. Raj Rani, Addl. Dy. Commissioner)

The Deputy Commissioner of Police

(Outer Distrcit)

Guru Hari kishan Marg,

Maulana Azad Society,

Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampur,

Delhi-110034.                                                    ….…….Respondent no. 2

Date of Order:      26.06.2019

Present:     Sh. Radhey Shyam Nishad, complainant in person.

Smt. Raj Rani, Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Rohini Zone alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar, Zonal Supdt. For Respondent no. 1

                   Sh. Baljit Singh, ASI No. 286/00 for respondent no. 2.

           

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 100% visual impairment vide his complaint dated 14.02.2019 submitted that he was residing in his khoka in front of ward no. 45 near Sultan Puri Bus Terminal, New Delhi-86.  He used to sleep in the same khoka and earn his livelihood and was also studying.  The personnel from the PCR Van used to make in appropriate comments on him and a security guard set up a tea shop near his khokha with the intention to get his khoka removed.  Thereafter, some persons from MCD came and took away his khoka in which his books, reading/recording devices, clothes etc. were kept.  The books and the reading devices were issued by the University and until these are returned, the University would not declare his result.  He therefore, requested that his Khoka and articles should be returned to him and arrangement for his stay should also be made. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondents under the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Act” vide letter dated 28.02.2019 followed by reminder dated 13.03.2019.  DCP North West District forwarded the complaint to DCP (Outer District).  As there was no response from respondents, a hearing was scheduled on 26.06.2019 vide summon dated 27.05.2019.

3.       Smt. Raj Rani, Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Rohini Zone who appeared alongwith Sh. Sushil Kumar, Zonal Superintendent submitted a reply dated 25.06.2019 which states that a complaint dated 17-12-2018 was received from Sh. Sumit Tomar vide which he had alleged that some anti-social elements had setup khokas near Sultan Puri Bus stand.  Those khokas were operated on the name of persons with disabilities by some persons without disabilities. Sh. Tomar also submitted the same complaint during the meeting of the SDM (Kanjhawala), wherein the SDM also directed the staff of the North DMC to take action against illegal khokas.    Thereafter, the staff of the Licensing Department and Maintenance Department of the Rohini Zone, North DMC alongwith staff of Delhi Police (PS-Sultan Puri) taken action against such illegal khokas on 15-01-2019. During the action, 06 no. of illegal khokas were impounded and were deposited in the Zonal Store. 04 khokas were released after receipt of fine from the defaulters. The photos taken during the action were also enclosed with the reply.

4.       Smt. Raj Rani also informed that khoka can be returned only after payment of penalty and as the complainant is not having any license, he should apply for the same with TVC.   

5.       After hearing the parties, it is observed that the only source of livelihood of the complainant has been lost and his studies disrupted.  He has no support whatsoever in Delhi except disability pension of Rs. 2,500/- per month.  He has no savings to pay the penalty which is estimated to be more than Rs. 22,000/- and get his Khokha released.  In view of the fact that the complainant had submitted the complainant on 14.02.2019 and has been pleading to release his khoka ever since, the penalty charges should be waived and his khoka alongwith his belongings should be returned to him with the minimum possible fine not exceeding Rs. 2,000/- and a report be submitted within 15 days of receipt of this order.

6.       The complainant is advised to apply for license for tehbajari/khoka after first July 2019 and Sh. Sushil Kumar will extend necessary assistance in this regard.

7.       The complaint is disposed of.  

8.       Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 28^th day of June, 2019.  

     

                                                                           (T.D. Dhariyal)

           State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities