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

Friday, June 7, 2019

Girdhari Lal Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 789/1011/2019/03/2584-2585 | Dated:06.06.2019




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,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 789/1011/2019/03/2584-2585                              Dated:06.06.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Girdhari Lal,
President,
Delhi Swasthya Kusht Majdoor Sansthaan,
Village of Hope, Phase-1,
149, Leprosy Complex, Tahirpur,,
Shahdara, Delhi-110085.                                                      …… Petitioner
                                     
Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.                                                                     .......Respondent

Date of hearing:       28.05.2019

Present:                  Sh. Girdhari Lal, Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sh. Dilshad Ahmed and Sh. Bhupender on behalf of complainant.
                
                
ORDER

The above named complainant, a leprosy cured person vide his complaint dated 05.03.2019 submitted that Leprosy cured persons have been given 1% reservation under PWD Act, 1995 and 4% reservation under RPwD Act, 2016 in recruitment to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts but they have not been given any assistance.


2.       The complaint was taken up with the Dte. of Education under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act vide show cause cum hearing notice dated 13.03.2019 with the direction to submit para-wise/point-wise comments on the complaint and  a hearing was scheduled on 04.04.2019 which was postponed to 28.05.2019.

3.       This case was tagged with Suo-motu case No.5/1593/2017-Wel/CD/part file which relates to reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities in Dte. of Education for hearing.  The representatives of Dte. of Education who appeared in the Suo-motu case submitted that another branch of Dte. of Education may be dealing with it.  However, appointment to Group ’C’ posts including MTS (erstwhile Group D posts) in Dte. of Education is made through Services Department. 

4.       The complainants submitted a copy of Dte. of Education (Estt.-I Branch) letter No.DE.1(26)/90/E.I/24872 dated 21.08.2019 vide which they had been  informed that on notification of vacancies to Employment Exchange for filling up the vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, Employment Exchange would be requested to include the names of Leprosy Cured Persons registered with them.  In the present scenario, the letter is not relevant as Dte. of Education does not make recruitment to such posts.

5.       It is noted that as per Section 34 of RPwD Act, 2016, 4% of the vacancies are to be reserved for persons with disabilities of which 1% vacancies are to be reserved for persons with locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy.  Eligible leprosy cured persons would have to apply in response to advertisements for filling up the reserved vacancies in the posts identified for them.

6.       This court has already taken up with the concerned Departments of GNCT of Delhi for computing the backlog of reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities and conducting special recruitment drive to fill up backlog, if any.  As and when such vacancies are advertised for filling up, the eligible Leprosy Cured Persons can also apply and in case there is any discrimination against them, they can bring the same to the notice of this court.  If the complainant wants to request the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for any special treatment for appointment against some posts, they may write to the Pr. Secretary/Secretary of the concerned Department.  As this complainant is not against non-implementation of any provision of the Act or discrimination on the ground of disability, the complaint is closed.
7.       Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 4th day of June, 2019.  

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



Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Rekha Rani Vs. DSSSB | Case No. 765/1014/2019/02/2538-2539A | Dated:03.06.2019




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,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 765/1014/2019/02/2538-2539A                        Dated:03.06.2019
In the matter of:

Ms. Rekha Rani
H.No. 1160, Road No. 4,
Gali No. 12 Mahipalpur,
New Delhi-110037.                                                         .....Complainant

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

         
Order
Sh. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate vide email dated 28.02.2017 on behalf of Ms. Rekha Rani, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability submitted that she secured 71.75 marks (Section A 26.5 and Section B 45.25 marks) for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery), Post Code 88/17, though cut off marks for OH PH was 70, yet she was not short listed.
2.       Upon considering the version of DSSSB that the complainant did not get minimum qualifying marks of 30% in Section A and hence she was not short listed, the complaint was closed.
3.       Sh. Mohit Kumar Gupta vide his email dated 02.05.2019 has contended that the relevant advertisement of 2017 did not mention about the minimum qualifying marks in each section.  He has therefore contended that necessary direction should be issued for ensuring reasonable assistance and infrastructure for resolving the grievances of candidates with disabilities before closing the complaint.
4.       In view of the above, the following recommendations are made to avoid inconvenience to candidates with disabilities:
i)        Information about various qualifying criteria such as minimum qualifying marks in various papers should be mentioned either in the relevant advertisement or a link to the relevant notices in accessible format in the website of DSSSB should be indicated in the advertisement.
ii)       Queries of candidates with disabilities should be resolved either through emails or on telephone in a time bound manner and a quick grievance redressal mechanism at appropriate level in DSSSB should also be put in place and operationalized to minimise the need for interface between the candidate and the officials.
                            

(T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Person with Disability

Copy to:
1.    Mohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Block-B, No.10, Karampua District West Delhi, NCT of Delhi, P.S. Moti Nagar, P.O. Ramesh Nagar, Pin Code-110015. Email: adv.mohitkumargupta@hotmail.com

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Ms. Rama Sharma Vs. The Chairman, DSSSB | Case No. 4/1125/2015/Wel./CD/1601-02 | Dated:25.08.2017

Case Summary:

Rama Sharma Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board

Atrocities: Complainant, a person with blindness submitted that her husband, also a person with blindness, was mistreated and manhandled when he went to the office of the respondent for document verification. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent informed that the allegations made by the complainant had been forwarded to the concerned branch and they were waiting for the coming report. Complainant’s husband later stated that the purpose of filling the complaint was to send a message to the concerned officers about treating persons with disabilities with dignity, and that he and his wife did not wish to pursue the matter and that the complaint may be closed.
Court pointed out various provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 which would have been applicable in this case had the complainant wished to pursue the complaint before closing the case. 


Order / Judgement: 

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. 4/1125/2015/Wel./CD/1601-02                          Dated:25.08.2017

In the matter of:

Ms. Rama Sharma
D/o Sh. Jeev Lal Sharma
G-4/17-18, Sector-16, Rohini
Delhi-110089                                                      ................ Complainant

                                          Versus                         

The Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma
Delhi-110092                                                     ………...…Respondent
  
ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide a complaint dated 23.09.2015 inter-alia submitted that as she was unable to personally go to the office of the respondent for document verification on 09.09.2015, her husband Sh. Dharma Raj Kumar who is also a person with blindness visited that office.  The concerned official misbehaved with her husband and asked the guard to throw him out of the office in front of many other people. 

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 21.10.2015 followed by a reminder dated 20.11.2015.

3.      The respondent vide letter dated 17.12.2015 submitted that the result of special education teacher was under process and the representation of the complainant had been examined.  The documents submitted by the candidates shall be considered while processing the result.  Subsequently, vide letter dated 30.11.2015, Deputy Secretary(Admin.) informed that the allegations made by the complainant regarding man-handling by the staff of DSSSB and non-verification of certificates of the candidates had been forwarded to the concerned branch and a report was likely to be submitted by that branch.  Therefore, the respondent sought some more time up to 15.12.2015.  The letter dated 30.11.2015 of respondent was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 28.11.2016 for comments.  However, the said letter was returned undelivered by the postal authorities.

4.      As there was no response from the respondent who had sought time for submission of the report upto 15.12.2015, the respondent was advised to send the same by 30.12.2016 vide letter dated 20.12.2016.  However, the respondent did not submit any report.  Since, the letter sent to the complainant had also been received back, the complainant was contacted on her given telephone on 21.08.2017.  Her husband  Sh. Dharma Raj Kumar informed that the address G-4/17-18 was incorrectly mentioned as G-417-18.  Hence the complainant did not receive letter dated 28.11.2016.  He also stated that the purpose of filing the complaint was to send a message to the concerned officers and staff working in DSSSB that they should treat persons with disabilities with sensitivity and dignity.  He further stated that he expected them to treat him the way they treat others.  It was unfortunate that the concerned staff was very rude.  He however, stated that Ms. Rama Sharma, his wife does not want to pursue the complaint further as the purpose was to convey his concern and requested that it may be closed.

5.      It is a matter of concern that the concerned officer in the office of the respondent did not submit any report as mentioned in his letter dated 30.11.2015.  It will be in the fitness of things for me to bring to the notice of the respondent that Section 92 (a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides, “whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;……………….. shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend  to 5 years and with fine”.          Section 89 and 93 of the said Act also provide for punishment for contravention of provisions of the Act or Rules or Regulations made there under and for failure to furnish information, respectively which may extend up to 5 lakh rupees. 

6.      As the complainant does not wish to proceed further, no action to invoke the above mentioned sections of the Act is being taken.  However, the respondent is advised to impress upon all concerned in the DSSSB to ensure handling and treating of persons with disabilities on equal basis with others and with dignity as envisaged in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.  An action taken report be submitted to this Court under intimation to the complainant by 23.09.2017.

7.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of August, 2017.


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


Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Rakesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, DSSSB | ase No. 4/1308/2016-Wel./CD/ 603-604 | Dated: 30.05.2017


Case Summary:

Employment: Complainant appeared for LDC Combined Examination under SC (PH-OH) category, but was not selected despite vacancies being there in SC, PH-OH and Unreserved categories. Respondent submitted that the cutoff for PH-OH category was 126.25 marks and that the Complainant had only obtained 96.5 marks. Complainant contended that another candidate with a score of 109.75 had been included in the final list so this contention was incorrect. Respondent then submitted that this candidate came under the PH-VH category, which had a different cutoff mark. Respondent elaborated that persons with disabilities who did not avail of the relaxation for their disability would be adjusted against vacancies for their respective vertical (General, OBC, SC) categories, due to which cutoff marks may go lower. However, no chance is expected for people with disabilities in the OH category as they have already been filled. Respondents also submitted documentation detailing he selection process. In light of the fact, it was ruled that the complainant hasn’t been denied the benefit of reservation. 


Order / Judgement: 


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. 4/1308/2016-Wel./CD/ 603-604                                   Dated: 30.05.2017
Case No. 4/1485/2016-Wel/CD

In the matter of:

Sh. Rakesh Kumar,
Ward No.-15, Naya Tola Madhopur,
Bakitiyar, Patna,
Bihar-803212.                                                             .……… Complainant     

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

Date of hearing:            26.05.2017         

Present:                          None for Complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Dy.Secretary and Sh. Anil Agarwal, Grade-I  on behalf of respondent.


ORDER

                  Sh. Rakesh Kumar, a person with 45% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 15.06.2016.  He submitted that he appeared in the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) Combined Examination for LDC Post Code 48/12 under the Roll No. 20000040 under SC (PH-OH) category. He also passed skill test and his documents were verified. However, in the result Notice No. 391 published on 08.06.2016, his name did not appear although 4 vacancies were reserved for PH-OH, 11 for SC and 28 were unreserved.  As per the Govt. of India’s rules, he should be given reservation in all the three quotas. 

2.               The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 19.07.2016.  A copy of his complaint was also received from the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 21.07.2016 and another from Department of Social Welfare vide letter dated 29.08.2016. One of his complaints was registered as Case No. i.e. 4/1485/2016-Wel-CD. As the subject matter in both the cases is same, this order will dispose of both the said cases.

3.               The respondent vide letter dated 22.09.2016 informed that written examination for the post code 48/12 Delhi Jal Board, 52/12 Rajya Sainik Board & 68/12 Services Department of GNCTD was conducted on 16.11.2014. Candidates upto 109.75 marks for UR/OBC/SC categories were shortlisted for appearing in type writing skill test. The complainant had applied under SC-PH(OH) category for the post of LDC in Delhi Jal Board.  He obtained 96.5 marks in the written examination.  For Delhi Jal Board, cut off  marks for PH-OH category were 126.25.  Since the complainant had obtained 96.5 marks in the written examination he was not selected.

4.               The complainant had submitted another complaint dated 23.1.2016 wherein he mentioned that  the Roll No. 20000005 with a score of 109.75 was included in the final merit list and hence the statement that the cut off marks for PH-OH were 129.75, was incorrect. 

5.               In view of the submissions of the complainant that the information supplied by the respondent was incorrect, a hearing was scheduled on 26.05.2017.  The respondent vide letter dated 18.05.2017 reiterated that the cut off  marks for final result under the post code for PH-OH category were 126.25 for the post of LDC in Delhi Jal Board (Post Code 48/12), whereas the complainant had obtained 96.5 marks in the written examination. Therefore, he was not selected.  The respondent further clarified that the candidate bearing Roll No. 20000005 was selected under PH-VH category for which  the cut off marks were different.   It has further been stated that the result of PH vacancies is being reviewed to ensure norms of horizontal reservation as laid down in the reservation policy.

6.               The representatives of the respondent during the hearing further elaborated that the persons with disabilities who were selected on their own merit without availing any relaxation as a person with disability, will be adjusted against the vacancies for their respective vertical categories i.e. General, OBC, SC.  Some dossiers have also been received back from the user Departments.  Due to which the result will need to be recast. Consequently the cut off marks are likely to be lower.  However,  in case of the complainant who applied for post code 48/12 (LDC in Delhi Jal Board) no change is expected  as all the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities in OH category have already been filled as on date.  They assured that the relevant instructions with regard to reservation for persons with disabilities will be strictly followed and no injustice will be done to the complainant.

7.               The representatives of the respondent also produced relevant record including all the relevant data in respect of candidates with locomotor disability.  It is observed from the record made available that the complainant appeared at Sl.No. 40  in the list of total 45 persons with locomotor disability (PH-OH). A separate merit list of the candidates with locomotor disability has been drawn for all the vacancies in three post codes i.e. 48/12, 52/12 & 68/12.  Thereafter, the candidates are picked up in the order of their merit amongst the OH category against the reserved vacancies in the post code for which they had applied. For example the complainant who had applied only for post code 48/12,  would be considered  only for post code 48/12. In the said post code- 48/12, out of 319 vacancies, 5 were reserved for OH, 6 for VH and 6 for HH category.    So the complainant at Sl.No. 40 of the merit list has no chance to be selected. 

8.               In the light of the facts mentioned above, the complainant has not been denied the benefit of reservation in accordance with the instructions on the subject.

           The matter is disposed of accordingly.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of May,2017.     


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