Showing posts with label Reservation for Persons with Disabilities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reservation for Persons with Disabilities. Show all posts

Thursday, March 7, 2019

Suo Motu Vs. Commissioner, Deptt of Trade & Taxes | Case No. 716/1011/2019/02/1134-1135 | Dated: 06.03.2019



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. 716/1011/2019/02/1134-1135                       Dated: 06.03.2019

In the matter of:

Suo Motu
    
Versus
The Commissioner,
Department of Trade & Taxes
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
3rd Floor, Vyapar Bhawan
IP Estate
New Delhi-110002.                                                        ...…Respondent


Date of hearing:        01.03.2019

Present: Sh. Amiya Kumar Shukla, GSTO (HR) alongwith Sh. B. Chander, ASO for respondent.
   
ORDER
Dr. Ram Kishan, a person with locomotor disability vide his email dated 30.01.2019 submitted that Department of Trade & Taxes under Govt. of NCT of Delhi has invited applications for Data Entry Operator (DEO) on contract basis.  However, reservation for persons with disabilities in the said recruitment has not been provided.
2.       The matter was taken up with the respondent vide show cause-cum-hearing notice dated 05.02.2019 under the Provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’.
3.       Department of Trade & Taxes, Human Resource Branch vide letter dated 18.02.2019 submitted as under:
“1)       This department does not recruit DEOs directly; instead they are outsourced through some Private Agency selected through GEM (Govt. e-Marketplace) Portal.
2)         Currently, the DEOs are being outsourced through GA Digital Web word Pvt. Ltd. Company through Gem Portal after observing all codal formalities as per GFR. Previously DEOs had been outsourced through ICSIL company.
3)         List of candidates who are registered with them is forwarded by the company after verifying their educational certificates, ID Proofs and character antecedents etc. based on the educational and other requirements provide by the department.
4)         Thereafter a typing test of these candidates is conducted in the Computer Lab of this department wherein typing speed of 30 wpm has been set as criteria for selection of eligible candidates.  They are deployed in this department according to Merit list.  The current duration of the contact is 1.2.19 to 30.11.19.”
4.       During the hearing on 01.03.2019, the representatives of the Department clarified that 131 posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) are vacant in the Department.  The recruitment to the post of LDC is made by the Services Department through DSSSB.  Due to unavailability of LDCs and with the approval of Services Department, DEOs are being appointed on outsourced basis.  As the Department does not directly recruit reservation is not being provided.  They also clarified that DEOs’ appointments are initially for 10 months which may be extended.  The agency through which the DEOs are recruited, may change.
5.       From the submissions of the respondent Department, it is seen that the appointments of DEOs through outsourced agency are being made against the vacancies in the sanctioned posts.  Had these posts been filled through DSSSB, reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities would have been made.  Merely because the nature of appointment and the agency through which the candidates are recruited, are different from the usual ones, persons with benchmark disabilities cannot be denied their right to reservation as provided under Section 34 of the Act which is reproduced below:
“34. Reservation.—(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—
(a)       blindness and low vision;
(b)       deaf and hard of hearing;
(c)        locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d)       autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e)       multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2)       Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.
(3)       The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.”

6.       Ministry of Home Affair’s O.M. No. 27/4/67(II)-Estt.(SCT) dated 24.09.1968 which is reproduced below also provides that reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be made in all temporary appointments except appointments which are to last for less than 45 days:
“Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No.27/4/67(II)-Estt.(SCT),
dated the 24th September, 1968, to all Ministries/Departments, etc.

Subject:-Recommendation No. 18 of the Working Group to study the progress of measures for land allotment to Scheduled Castes and their representation in services-Reservation in temporary appointments.
The Working Group under the Chairmanship of Shri M.R. Yardi, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to study the progress of measures for land allotment to Scheduled Castes and their representation in services has inter-alia made the following recommendation:-
Recommendation No. 18
“Rules of reservations should also be extended to purely temporary posts.  This would give an opportunity to Scheduled Castes applicants appointed against short term vacancies to gain experience which will facilitate their absorption later in regular vacancies.”
2.         Accordingly to existing orders, reservations are made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in all temporary appointments except those which are to last for less than 3 months.  The recommendation of the Working Group has been considered and it has been decided that the aforesaid reservation orders should in future apply to all temporary appointments which are to last 45 days or more.  Accordingly, with effect from the date of issue of this O.M., reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be made in all temporary appointments except appointments which are to last for less than 45 days.
3.         Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all authorities under them.
4.         This issues with the concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in so far as persons serving under him are concerned.”
7.       A plain reading of Section 34 of the Act indicates that reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is not linked to long term, short term or regular appointment.  The only condition is that the provision of the said reservation would not be applicable to appointments made by promotion. The manner and the agency through which such appointments are made to fill the vacancies in the posts are not relevant.
8.       One of the objectives of making a provision for reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is to economically empower them and to ensure that they lead a life of dignity on equal basis with others.  It is implicit in the provision under Section 34 of the Act that they get their share in the employment opportunities/appointments that are available to other members of public. Therefore, irrespective of whether the appointments are made on long term, short term, regular or by whatever nomenclature these are referred to, the quota that has been earmarked for persons with benchmark disabilities in the statute, must be provided to them.  Therefore, every Govt. establishment is mandated under Section 34 of the Act to reserve not less than 4% vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities against the appointments made by them in the posts in that establishment.  For the purpose of computing the reserved vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities, a running roster as prescribed by DoPT in their OM no. No. 36035/02/2017-Estt. (Res) dated 15.01.1998, should be used. 
9.       In view of the above, the respondent should place the demand accordingly with the recruiting agency/ supplier of DEOs and ensure that the prescribed percentage of vacancies are reserved and filled up by persons with benchmark disabilities as mandated in Section 34 of the Act.
10.     As appointments on short term basis/on contract/outsourced basis are being made in various Departments against the sanctioned posts, a copy of this order is being marked to Secretary, Services Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi with the request to issue appropriate instructions to all the concerned for reservation of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities against all the appointments made in the sanctioned posts for a period of 45 days or more.
11.     Action taken report on the above mentioned recommendations be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.
12.     The complaint is disposed off.
13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 06th day of March, 2019.     




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

Copy to :
Secretary, Services Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 7th Level, B-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 (email: secservices@nic.in) for information and necessary action on para 10 of the order.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

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




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


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

In the matter of:

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

Versus

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

ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Vipin Kumar & Mahinder Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr | Case No. 604/1146/2018/11/891-894 | Dated:18.02.2019




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


1.    Case No. 604/1146/2018/11/891-894                                        Dated:18.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Vipin Kumar
A-91, Gali No. 2, Phase-IV,
Gautam Vihar, Shiv Vihar,
Delhi-110094.                                                      .............. Complainant

2.    Case No. 607/1146/2018/11

In the matter of:

Sh. Mahinder Singh
H-93, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-110083.                                                         ..………Complainant

Versus

The Managing Director,
Delhi Transport Corporation
Office at DTC HQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.                                      …...…Respondent (1)

The Secretary
Directorate of Employment (HQ)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
IARI Complex, Pusa,
New Delhi-110012.                                    ………Respondent (2)

Date of Hearing    14.02.2019

Present:      Sh. Vipin Kumar and Sh. Mahinder Singh, Complainants in person.
Sh. Chander Prakash, Dy. CGM (Pers)-I for Respondent no. 1.
Sh. Pawan Kumar, SREO (DC) alongwith Smt. Anuradha Mittal, DEO for Respondent no. 2.

ORDER
The above named complainants, Sh. Vipin Kumar (59% locomotor disability) and Sh. Mahender (68% locomotor disability) vide their complaints dated 14.11.2018 submitted that their names were forwarded by Directorate of Employment for the post of Conductor in DTC under the category of Ph candidates for which the interview was scheduled on 09.08.2018.  They were also given second opportunity for interview on 02.11.2018.  They had valid registration numbers with the Directorate of Employment and as per the list forwarded by the Directorate of Employment, their names appeared in the list of candidates with disabilities.  However, when they reported for interview on 02.11.2018, they were informed that their names were not in the list of candidates with disabilities. 
2.       The complaints were taken up with the respondent under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ vide notice dated 05.12.2018 followed by reminder dated 08.01.2019.  Deputy Manager (PER) DTC vide reply dated 03.01.2019 submitted as under :
“Sir,
               Kindly refer to your office letter No. 604/1146/2018/11/12665 dated 5.12.2018 along with complaint of Shri Vipin Kumar and Shri Mahinder Singh for the post of conductor in DTC and asked for Action Taken Report on the complaint.   
     
     In this context, it is informed that Delhi Transport Corporation has given requisition of 2000 vacancies for the post of Conductor on short term contract in 2010 and 2017 through on line process to the Directorate of Employment. The Directorate of Employment, GNCTD provided the lists of candidates with registration ID numbers for the post of Conductor on short term contract through on line process. The work of registration/category/allotment of registration ID number with details  of candidate  is exclusive the subject matter of Employment Exchange/Directorate of Employment and the Corporation is considering the candidates sponsored by the Directorate of Employment in order of registration ID Numbers under said category   for the post of Conductor on short term contract.  As per Govt. Instructions, there is no reservation in contractual engagement.

        In the cases of Shri Vipin Kumar Regd. ID No.2009178450) and Shri Mahinder Singh (Regd. ID No.2009459241) were shown in the category of S/Caste in the list supplied by the Directorate of Employment, GNCTD and as such, they appeared for screening of documents on 2.11.18 and 23.8.18 and the Screening Committee found them eligible for the post of conductor on short term contract. As per laid down procedure, they were directed for medical examination as per prescribed medical standards for the said post and they were found Unfit for the post of Conductor by DTC Medical Board.  Photo-copies of the Screening Committee and medical examination reports of both complainants are sent herewith for kind perusal.

               From the above, it appeared that there is no lapse on the part of this Corporation. However, in the fresh list supplied by Directorate of Employment, their names have appeared in PH category also.  DTC is now sending a fresh requisition to Directorate of Employment regarding filling up the post of Conductors on short term contract under PH quota.  After received the updated list from Directorate of Employment, DTC will re-process the case of Shri Vipin Kumara and Shri  Mahinder Singh.      
                                                                                                       Yours  faithfully,
Encl:- As above                                                                   
( M.S.Kataria )
Dy. Manager (Pers.)”
3.       As per the reply dated 04.01.2019 of Directorate of Employment, the employment ID 2009178450 and 2009459241 pertain to Sh. Vipin Kumar and Sh. Mahender Singh.  Their names were sponsored against the vacancy ID 2017001090 for the post of DTC Bus Conductor.  The names of Sh. Vipin Kumar appeared at serial no. 139 in PH category and at serial no. 2361 in SC category in the list sent on 07.12.2017 and at serial no. 134 in PH category and at serial no. 7232 in SC category in the list sent on 22.10.2018.  The name of Sh. Mahender Singh appeared at serial no. 154 in ph category and at serial no. 5885 in SC category in the list sent on 07.12.2017 and at serial no. 230 in PH category and at serial no. 20012 in SC category in the list of 22.10.2018. The Department does not play any role in the recruitment/ call letters/ interview process for the employers.  
4.       Upon considering the submissions of the parties, a hearing was scheduled on 14.02.2019.
5.       During the hearing, the parties reiterated their written submissions.  Sh. Chander Prakash, Dy. CGM (PER)-I added that the names of the complainants were checked in the computer screen and print outs were taken which did not show their names in the list of ph category.  They even sent an email on 19.11.2018 to Directorate of Employment that their names appeared in SC list but not in the list of ph category.  He also informed that about 33 vacancies of Conductor on contract basis under PH quota are yet to be filled.  Due to some technical issues in the portal of Department of Employment, they are not able to place requisition for list of PH candidates.  As soon as the list is available, the process of recruitment would start.  He however, expressed the reservation on the applicability of reservation for persons with disabilities in contractual appointments.
6.       Sh. Pawan Kumar, SREO stated that the data in the list might have been changed at the end of DTC probably in downloading the file.  At their end, they were able to see the names of the complainants in the list of ph candidates. 
7.       The complainants deposed and clarified during the hearing that they were not approached by any person for any extraneous consideration.  Therefore, from the submissions of the parties and the discussion during the hearing, it appears that the names of the complainants did not show in list of PH candidates due to some technical error.  Since the vacancies were reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, had the complainant’s names appeared in the list of candidates with benchmark disabilities for the post of Conductor on contract basis, they would have been selected and appointed as both the complainants have valid conductor license, first aid certificate and requisite educational qualification.  However, due to the error in the process of transmission of data, downloading it, they got deprived of the appointment. 
8.       In the context of the submissions on behalf of DTC, it is in the fitness of things to refer to the provision under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which came into force on 19 April 2017.  The said provision is reproduced below:
34.   Reservation.—(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2)       Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. 17
(3)       The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.”
9.       Prior to coming into effect of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was in force.  Section 33 of that Act had a similar provision except that the quantum of reservation was 3% instead of 4%.  Neither Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 nor Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 distinguished between an appointment on regular, long term, short term, contract, ad-hoc etc. basis.   Reservation is to be provided against the vacancies that are filled.  As per OM no. 27/4/67/(II) and Estt./(SCT) dated 24.09.1968 of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, reservation orders should apply to all temporary employments which are to last for 45 days or more.  Accordingly, with effect from the date of issue of the said OM, reservation for SCs and STs was instructed to be made in all temporary appointments except appointments which are to last less than 45 days.  In 1968, neither the above mentioned socially beneficial Acts existed nor was there any provision for reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities. The p urpose of providing for reservation is to ensure that persons with disabilities are given their share in whatever type of employment is available for the citizens of the country.  Considering the purpose and spirit of enacting the said socially beneficial Act, there can be no reason why a principle applicable to candidates belonging to SC and ST category on the same issue, should not apply to persons with disabilities who are in a more disadvantageous position and in case of the complainants, they are doubly disadvantaged as they also belong to SC category.  The purpose of making a provision for reservation for persons with disabilities must therefore be understood in the right perspective which is to economically empower them and to ensure them a dignified life.  Reservation of vacancies in appointments and employment is one of the means to fulfil these objectives. 
10.     In view of the above discussion, I recommend that DTC should consider the complainants and other eligible candidates with benchmark disabilities for whom the post of Conductor has been identified against the reserved vacancies of conductor including on contract basis in accordance with the provisions of the Act as expeditiously as possible particularly because, but for the technical/human error, they would have been appointed in November, 2018 itself.  Any further delay in their appointment shall deprive them of their legitimate right which must be avoided at all costs.
11.     Action taken on the above recommendation be intimated to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.
12.     The complaints are disposed off.
13.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18th February, 2019.
     



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