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
[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:
