Showing posts with label Misc. Recruitment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misc. Recruitment. Show all posts

Saturday, June 9, 2018

Pradeep Kumar Vs. The Chairman, DSSSB | Case No. 155/1041/2018/03/7739-40 | Dated: 08.06.2018



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. 155/1041/2018/03/7739-40                         Dated: 08.06.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o 1569 Near Brahman Chopal
Pna Mamur Pur, Narela
Delhi-110040.                                                             .……Applicant

Versus

The Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
F-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                                              ...…Respondent

Date of Hearing:    07.06.2018

Present:      Sh. Pradeep Kumar, applicant in person.
Sh. LR Garg, Member DSSSB on behalf of respondent.

         
ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 90% Locomotor  disability vide his complaint dated 06.03.2018 submitted that DSSSB conducted the (Tier-I) examination for the post of Administrative Officer/Z.R.O. in Delhi Jal Board on 31.05.2015 after a gap of three years from the closing date of applications.  The result of Tier-I examination was declared on 28.07.2016.  But Tier-II examination had not been held.  He therefore submitted that the examination process should be completed within six months.
2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 13.03.2018 followed by a reminder dated 17.04.2018 and a hearing was held on 07.06.2018.
3.      During the hearing on 07.06.2018, the representative of the respondent submitted a report dated 06.06.2018 as per which the Tier-II examination for the post code 67/12 has already been conducted on 03.06.2018.  The complainant was issued an admit card and was also present in the examination. There was however, no discrimination against the complainant.
4.      The complainant confirmed that he has appeared in the Tier-II  examination on 03.06.2018.  He further stated that as Tier-II examination was not being held for long, he filed this complaint.  However, as the examination has already been held, he has no further grievance in this regard.  In light of this, the complaint is disposed of.
5.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 08th day of June, 2018.

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


Friday, June 8, 2018

Pradeep Kumar Vs. DSSSB | ase No. 282/1041/2018/05/7719-18 | Dated: 07.06.2018


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. 282/1041/2018/05/7719-18                   Dated:  07.06.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o 1569 Near Brahman Chopal
Pna Mamur Pur, Narela
Delhi-110040.                                                    ……Applicant

Versus

Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
(Got of NCT of Delhi)
(Through its Secretary)
F-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092.                                                    …Respondent

         
Order

The above named complainant, a person with 90% Locomotor disability (right lower limb and right upper limb) vide his email dated 14.05.2018 addressed to Secretary, DSSSB with a copy to this Court requested to allow him his own scribe and 20 minutes compensatory time per hour of examination to write Tier-II examination for the post of ZRO/Administrative Officer to be held by DSSSB on 03.06.2018. He also filed an OA in the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking relief on the same issue.
2.         As the examination was to be held on 03.06.2018 (Sunday), this Court vide letter dated 31.05.2018 informed the respondent that as per para IV and para XI  of OM no. 16-110/2003-DD.III dated 26.02.2013 of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, a candidate making use of scribe, should have the discretion of opting his own scribe and compensatory time of not less than 20 minutes per hour of examination respectively.  In view of a such clear guideline, it was recommended that the complainant be allowed his own scribe and 20 minutes compensatory time per hour of examination to be held on 03.06.2018.  The letter was also emailed to the parties. 
3.         Hon’ble Tribunal, while disposing off the MA no. 2518/2018, directed vide order dated 31.05.2018 that the applicant should approach the Chairman, DSSSB or any concerned functionary of DSSSB in view of the recommendation made by the State Commissioner.  This Court also ascertained from the complainant that he was allowed his own scribe and 20 minutes extra/compensatory time as per the instructions in the examination held on 03.06.2018.  In light of this, the complaint is disposed off.
4.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07th day of June, 2018.

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


Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Narayan Sharma Vs. The MS, Aruna Assaf Ali Govt. Hospital & two Ors. | Case No. 4/1753/2017-Wel/CD/6209-6211 | Dated: 19.03.2018




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. 4/1753/2017-Wel/CD/6209-6211             Dated: 19.03.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Narayan Sharma,
S/o Sh. Bhoop Raj Sharma
H.No. 80, Block A, New Seema Puri,
Delhi-110095.                                                         .……… Complainant     

                                                  Versus

The Medical Superintendent,
Aruna Assaf Ali Govt. Hospital,
50-Rajpur Road,
Delhi-110054.                                                    …...…Respondent No.1


The Secretary,
Services Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.                                                         ………..Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing : 13.03.2018

Present: Sh. Narayan Sharma, Complainant
Dr. V.P. Khari, DMS on behalf of Respondent No.1, Sh. Nirmal Sharma, ASO & Sh. Ajay Kumar, JA on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
        
ORDER

              The above named complainant, a person with 57% of locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 16.08.2017  received from the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 19.09.2017 submitted that he was selected for the post of Gr.IV DASS,LDC.  He received a telephonic call from the office of respondent no. 1, for joining the post immediately. However, he did not receive any offer of appointment till 03.04.2017.  He further submitted that he informed them that he was working in the Office of Addl. Director(CGHS), East Zone, Laxmi Nagar, and needed to tender technical resignation and requested to send him the offer of appointment. He again wrote a letter dated 10.03.2017 to the Office of MS, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital (AAAGH) with a copy to Services Department. Thereafter he personally collected a copy of offer of appointment dated 27.06.2016 which, among other things, mentioned that in case no reply was received within three weeks from the date of issue of offer of appointment, the said offer of appointment would lapse automatically and no further communication from the candidate would  be entertained in future. 

2.           Vide Memorandum-II dated 03.04.2017, Office of respondent No. 1 informed the complainant that a final opportunity was being given to him to join within a week of receiving that Memorandum otherwise offer of appointment would stand cancelled and his dossier would be returned to the Services Department.  The complainant had also submitted his technical resignation and informed the respondent.  Although his technical resignation had been accepted in his parent Department, respondent No. 1 informed him vide letter dated 26.05.2017 that his dossier had been sent back to Services Department on 21.04.2016 on the ground that he had not joined.  The complainant also alleged that he was not entertained properly when he approached the Services Department.

3.             During the hearing on 07.02.2018, it was observed that the Office had taken up the complaint vide notice dated 27.10.2017 with the DSSSB who had no role to play.  Therefore, the Chairman, DSSSB was removed from the list of respondents and Medical Superintendent, AAA Govt. Hospital and Services Department were impleaded as respondent no. 1 & 2 respectively.  Vide RoP dated 08.02.2018, they were directed to submit as to why the complainant should not be allowed to join the Office of the respondent No. 1 in the post of Grade-IV DASS LDC  and the matter was listed for hearing on 13.03.2018.

4.           On 13.03.2018, the complainant reiterated that he collected the offer of appointment by hand from the Office of the respondent no. 1 as he did not receive it by post.  He immediately, vide his application dated 27.06.2016, requested respondent no. 1 to grant him extension of three months to join as he needed to resign from C.G.H.S, where he is working as LDC.  He has not received any response till date.

5.           The representative of respondent no.1 submitted that the offer of appointment in respect of the complainant was cancelled as he did not join. Offer of Appointment was sent by speed post to the complainant on 27.06.2016 alongwith nine more candidates, the proof of which is available in the office files. The representation of the complainant has been referred to the Services Department through Principal Secretary (Health) for advice and  for further directions. As soon as the advice is received, the directions will be executed.    

6.           The representative of respondent no. 2 submitted that the Services Department has received a proposal from respondent no. 1 for advice on whether the complainant can be allowed to join whether  his dossier can be revived. The Services Department will give its opinion within 7 to10 days. He also submitted that as per Delhi Administration Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 for Grade IV DASS employees, Head of the Department concerned is the appointing authority and therefore, MS, AAA Govt. Hospital is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter.  The relevant rules do not prohibit extension of time to join a post.

7.           In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is recommended that respondent No. 2 should render the advice in the matter by 23.03.2018 to respondent no. 1 who shall consider the same and take a decision by 28.03.2018. The offer of appointment may be sent to the complainant by email in addition to other means to ensure that it reaches him in time.  The complainant should join the post within a month thereafter.

8.           Respondent No.1 & 2 and the complainant shall inform this Court about the action taken by them by email immediately after they take their actions mentioned above.  The matter is disposed off accordingly.

9.           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of March, 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:     




Thursday, January 11, 2018

Hemlata Arya Vs. DSSSB | Case No. 4/1340/2016-Wel/CD/3790-91 | Dated: 10.01.2018




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. 4/1340/2016-Wel/CD/3790-91                                       Dated: 10.01.2018

In the matter of:
Ms. Hemlata Arya
Hemlata723@gmail.com                                                      ....................Petitioner
Versus

The Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
GNCT of Delhi
FC-18, Institutional Area
Karkardooma, New Delhi -110092                                        ..................Respondent

ORDER

            The above named complainant vide her email dated 22.06.2016 submitted that she cleared DSSSB exam of teacher (Social Science) is a SC Candidate.  Before 3 months she underwent total Hip Replacement Surgery of Right side and left side was also to be operated in August, 2016.  Due to this she has problem in her legs.  She wanted to know whether she would be treated as a person with Locomotor Disability or not and should she need a disability certificate after her second operation and whether she would continue to be SC Candidate or will her candidature be cancelled due to the Hip Joint Transplant.  The said email was received from Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide email dated 22.06.2016. 

2.         The matter was taken up with DSSSB vide communication dated 05.09.2016.  DSSSB vide letter dated 16.12.2016 informed that the complainant had applied under SC Category and her nomination has also been considered under SC category.  The Board cannot make any changes in respect of her category, his educational qualifications; date of birth etc. and that eligibility of candidate in all respects including caste status is to be decided on the crucial date corresponding to their advertisement i.e. 20.03.2013.  The letter dated 16.12.2016 of DSSSB was forwarded to the complainant for comments if any vide letter dated 24.01.2017, as no comments have been received from the complainant and moreover, she is not a person of disability. 

3.         The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

4.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 09th day of January, 2017.



(T.D. DHARIYAL)
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities


Saturday, January 6, 2018

Vikas Sharma Vs. Director, Dte of Employment | Case No. 4/1075/2015-Wel/CD/3770-71 | Dated: 05.01.2018



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. 4/1075/2015-Wel/CD/3770-71                                            Dated: 05.01.2018

In the matter of:

Pt. Vikas Sharma,
Chairman, Disabled Helpline Foundation, India
Sharmaptvikas@gmail.com.                                                    .……… Complainant     


                                                                     Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Employment, GNCT of Delhi,
C-Block, 5-Sham Nath Marg, Delhi.                                           …...…Respondent
 
ORDER

              The above named complainant vide his complaint dated 06.08.2015 addressed to Hon’ble Chief Minister, Govt. of Delhi with copies  to Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of NCT of Delhi among others,  pointed out some problems faced by persons with disabilities  during the Job Summit 2015 organised on 1st August, 2015 by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  The issues ranged from pre-summit preparation to awareness, assistance during the summit and placement of  persons with disabilities. 

2.           The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated  10.08.2015  followed five reminders and  a hearing on 17.11.2016.  However, neither any comments were received nor did any person appear on 17.11.2016.  Thereafter, another hearing was scheduled on 03.01.2018.

3.           Sh. Pawan Kamra, Sr. Regional Employment Officer(SREO), Directorate of Employment  filed a written submission dated 03.01.2018, which reads as under:-

“1.The mandate of Directorate of Employment is to constitute /create a platform between Employers and Employees for getting employment. Though all the related work is being done online, on the website www.employment.delhigovt.nic.in but to go forward further to facilitate Employers and Employees, Directorate is organising Job Fairs for general and for person with disabilities from time to time.
          2.  On 1st August 2015, Directorate has also organised a Job Summit for persons with disabilities and its status report is enclosed as Annexure-I.
         3.  If petitioner has any suggestions for improvement, the Directorate shall welcome it.”

 4.          As per Annexure-I, the details of placement of persons with disabilities on 01.08.2015 is as under:-
S.No.
Name of Company
Total Short Listed
PWD Category
1.
Netambit
12
12(OH)
2.
KFC (Yami)
4
4 (HI)
3.
Pepsico
32
32(OH)
4.
Concentrix
12
12 (OH)
5.
Aegis
31
31(OH)
6.
Vodafone
25
20(OH)
5(VI)
7.
Steria
12
12(OH)
8.
Minda
14
5 (OH)
9(HI)

Total
142


(OH) Orthopedically Handicapped =       124
(VI) Visually Impaired                     =            5
(HI) Hearing Impaired                     =         130
                                                          ___________
Total                                                 =       142
                                                          ____________ 

5.           Sh. Pawan Kamra further added that they have the information about the number of persons with disabilities short-listed by companies.  The information about the number of short-listed candidates actually joined is not available.

6.           As the complainant did not personally appear, he was contacted on his given telephone number.  The written submission of the respondent was read over to him to enable him to make his statement / rejoinder on telephone itself so that the case would be disposed of.  The complainant agreed to this process of recording his statement.  He suggested that in many cases persons with disabilities are short-listed and offered jobs but only a few are retained. He therefore, suggested that before organising the next Job Fair / in six months, the Directorate of Employment should get the information from the companies about the number of candidates with disabilities who actually joined and continue to work.

7.           It will be worth while to discuss the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which has come into force w.e.f 19.04.2017.  The relevant sections are as under:-

“2(x) Public facilities and services includes all forms of delivery of services to the public at large, including housing, educational and vocational trainings, employment and career advancement, shopping or marketing, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational, medical, health and rehabilitation, banking, finance and insurance, communication, postal and information, access to justice, public utilities, transportation.
20.Non-discrimination in employment.—(1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
35. Incentives to employers in private sector - The appropriate Government and the local authorities shall, within the limit of their economic capacity and development, provide incentives to employer in private sector to ensure that at least five per cent. of their work force is composed of persons with benchmark disability.”

8.           Government of India (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities) has introduced a scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2008 under which Central Govt. will pay employer’s share of EPF and ESI contribution for the first three years for a person with disability employed in a private sector establishment.  Another measure to incentivise the employment of persons with disabilities in private sector is the scheme of National Award for best employer and placement officer or agency. Under this, three awards one each to Government Sector, Public Sector Undertakings or local Govt. body and private or non-government organisation.  The award is comprises of the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- , a citation, a certificate and a medal.  For best Placement Officer / Agency, a award comprising cash of Rs. 50000/-,  a citation / certificate and a shield.

9.           Section 40 to 46 of the Act provide for access to built environment, transport,  information and communication technology and services.

10.         It  is observed that Govt. of NCT of  Delhi  will be organising  a Mega Job Fair on 15-16th February, 2018 in which the companies and job seekers can register online on the Job Fair Portal  i.e. www.jobfair.delhi.giov.in.  As private as well as the Govt. establishments can participate in the Mega Job Fair, it is recommended that the common / individual circular or invitations to the companies may mention about the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 regarding reservation of not less than 4% vacancies for persons with disabilities (only in Govt. establishments) and the Central Government’s scheme of National Award  and incentive for employment to private sector employers mentioned above.  It is also recommended to ensure that the venue of  the job fair is accessible to persons with disabilities and to facilitate easy and barrier free access to the Job Fair.  The Job Fair portal be also made accessible to persons with disabilities.

11.         The suggestion made by the complainant that the information about the joining of candidates of persons with disabilities and the status of their retention before the next job fair / in six months whichever is earlier, be also considered.

12.         Action taken on the above recommendations may be intimated to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

13.         The complaint is disposed off in terms of the above recommendations.

14.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 5th  day of January, 2018.     

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


View the digitally signed PDF Order here: