Awadesh Kumar Prajapati Vs. Dte of Education | Case No. 4/ 1649/2017 -Wel/CD/ 2447-48 | Dated: 27.10.2017

Case Summary:

Awadesh Kumar Prajapati Vs. The Director, Director of Education

Employment: Complainant submitted that he has not been considered for promotion from TGT to PGT despite seniority No. of 3949 while his colleague with seniority No. 4007 has been. Respondent submitted that the other TGT was under SC category and the last seniority number in the zone of consideration under SC category was 4591. The Complainant comes under General category and the last seniority No in that category is 3316. In addition, it was noted that there is no reservation for persons with disabilities in Group-A & B posts. The position was explained to the complainant and the complaint was accordingly disposed of. 

 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/ 1649/2017 -Wel/CD/ 2447-48                                  Dated: 27.10.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. Awadesh Kumar Prajapati,

R/O-D-4, Delhi Admn. Flats,

Model Town-I, Delhi-110009.                                                        .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

The Director,

Directorate of Education,

Old Sectt., Delhi-110054.                                                                     …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:            17.10.2017

Present                           None on behalf of complainant.

                                        Ms. Shakti Singh, Suptd. on behalf of Respondent.

            

ORDER

                The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 06.05.2017 submitted that he is working as TGT(Hindi) in Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  His Seniority No. is 3949 as per Circular dated 27.04.2011 but his name has not been considered for promotion to PGT (Hindi).  Whereas Sh. Darvesh Kumar, TGT (Hindi) with Seniority No.  4007 has been kept at Sl.No. 165 for promotion.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 27.07.2017. As no response was received, a hearing was scheduled on 17.10.2017.  In the meantime Directorate of Education vide letter dated  21.09.2017 informed the complainant with a copy to this Court that Sh. Darvesh Kumar was appointed as TGT (Hindi) and was allotted Seniority No. 4007 under SC category. The last Seniority number in the zone of consideration for PGT (Hindi) in SC category is 4591. Therefore, the name of Sh. Darvesh Kumar with Seniority No. 4007 exists in the consideration zone. On the other hand, the Seniority number in the consideration zone for PGT (Hindi) in general category is 3316. Since the complainant is at Seniority No. 3949, his name does not exist in the consideration zone for promotion for the year 2015-16.

3.      During the hearing, the representative of the respondent also stated that the position has explained to the complainant and if he still has some doubts, he can contact the concerned officer (Sh. Shakti Singh, Superintendent).

4.      As the complainant was not present during the hearing, he was contacted on telephone on 23.10.2017.  He confirmed the receipt of  letter dated 29.09.2017.  He further stated that the Notice of hearing dated 18.09.2017 was not received by him though the same was not received back in this Court undelivered.

5.      In addition to the position mentioned in the letter dated  21.09.2017 of the respondent, it was clarified to the complainant that as per existing instructions of DoP&T, Govt. of India which are applicable to the employees of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, there is no reservation for persons with disabilities in promotion to Group-A and Group-B posts.  As PGT (Hindi) is a Group-B Post, the complainant would have to be considered alongwith his vertical category counterparts i.e. those belonging to general category for promotion to the post of PGT(Hindi). Since no person junior to him has been included in the consideration zone list as per him, no discrimination has been meted out to him.  The complainant confirmed that he has understood the position as explained to him.

6.      In the light of the above position, the complaint is disposed of.

          Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27^th day of October,  2017.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

P.S. Dhama Vs NDMC | Case No. 4/1462/2016-Wel./CD/ 2597-98 | Dated: 30.03.2017

Case Summary:

Employment - Promotion, Regularization, seniority list, 

Complainant alleges non regularization of his promotion granted at the order of the Commissioner, failure to prepare seniority list etc. and granted promotion to his junior. The respondent  directed to examine the matter thoroughly taking into consideration the representation of the complainant and other relevant facts and take a final view on his prayer explaining the reasons for giving the Current Duty Charge to a junior person in preference to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and inform the complainant by way of a speaking order under intimation to this Court.  As regards regularization of ad-hoc promotion of the complainant to the post of Principal, the same be considered as per extant provisions of the relevant rules and instructions issued by the appropriate Government. It may be ensured that no discrimination be meted out to the complainant on the ground of his disability as provided  under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

Order / Judgement:

In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005

[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/1462/2016-Wel./CD/ 2597-98                                 Dated: 30.03.2017

In the matter of:

Sh. P.S. Dhama,

President, Joint Front of PwD & OBC Teacher’s Association Delhi,

G-63, MCD Colony Dhaka, Kingsway Camp,

New Delhi-110009                                                               …………… Complainant     

                                                                 

Versus

The Director (Personnel),

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, SPMC Civic Centre,

New Delhi-110002                                                                      ……...…Respondent

            

Date of hearing: 23/03/2017

Present:   Sh. P.S. Dhama, Complainant

Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Asstt. Commssioner/CED, Ms. Nirmala, Dy.Director(Education), HQ on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

        The complainant, a person with 40 % locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 05.11.2016 submitted that he was appointed as teacher on 15.07.1994 in O.H. sub-category of persons with disabilities.  He alleged that after the order of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, he was promoted to the post Principal (Pry.) on adhoc basis on 11.02.2009 and has not been regularised so far.  He also alleged that despite the order of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to follow the seniority list for giving look after charge to the post of School Inspector, one Sh. Mahipal Singh, who is junior to him, is still working as School Inspector.  The complainant has prayed that he may be granted look after charge to the post of School Inspector (General) as the same is an identified post for persons with locomotor disability.  His second prayer is to regularise his adhoc promotion to the post of Principal.

2.     The complaint was initially taken up with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Deptt., HQ, who vide their letter dated 25.1.2017, informed that the complainant was working in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and hence no action on the grievance of the complainant could be taken by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation.

3.               The North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Deptt., HQ vide their letter dated 14.02.2017 submitted that they have sought clarification from DOP&T on whether the reservation for persons with disabilities in promotion to the post of Head Master, which is a Group-B post, is applicable or not in the light of  the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The said clarification is still awaited. In the meantime as per the current instructions, there is no reservation for persons with disabilities for promotion to Group-B posts. It is further submitted that the look after charge of School Inspectors (SI-LAC)  is purely a temporary arrangement to deal with the short falls of school Inspectors for smooth functioning of the Department. In the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Deptt., HQ, the look after charge has been assigned to senior most eligible Head Masters.  All the School Inspectors (SI-LAC) working in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation are senior to the complainant. 

4.               As regards Sh. Mahipal Singh (VH), it has been stated that he was assigned the charge of School Inspector on Current Duty Charge (CDC) by Central Establishment Department(CED) of North Delhi Municipal Corporation who had been asked to clarify.  The representative of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Education Department clarified that the expression `promotion’ has inadvertently been mentioned in Para 7  instead of `Current Duty Charge’(CDC). It has also been stated that the promotion to the post of School Inspector which is a Group-A post, is to be carried out by the Central Establishment Deptt.(CED), who have made their submissions vide their letter dated 16.3.2017.  The Central Establishment Deptt.(CED) in the said letter have inter-alia submitted that complainant was promoted to the post of Headmaster, category B w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on ad-hoc basis under reservation for persons with disabilities.  However, as per the instructions of DoP&T, there is no reservation for persons with disabilities in promotion to Group B posts.  Therefore, the ad-hoc promotion of the complainant and Sh. Mahipal Singh(VH)  to the post of Headmaster, selection category `B’ post needs review /examination with reference to reservation for persons with disabilities.  It has further been stated that a regular departmental action  No. 1/15/2016 for major penalty is pending against the complainant since 18.3.2016. Whereas the case for current duty charge/LAC to selection category ‘A’ post of School Inspector (Gen.) entry level in PB-3 in the present scenario, is not covered under the instructions/guidelines of DoP&T. As regards the case of Sh. Mahipal Singh (VH), the only person junior to the complainant in North Delhi Municipal Corporation, who has been assigned current duty charge to the post of School Inspector (Gen.) in his own pay scale of Head master, will be taken up subsequently. 

5.               The complainant submitted that his promotion to the post of Principal was against the backlog of reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities (OH) which belong to the period when the post of Principal was in Group C. The said promotion was given to him following the directions of the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of Delhi.

6.               It is seen that the then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide his order dated 12.10.2015 had observed,  “there is a need therefore to prepare a seniority list of Principals/teachers and if there is a need to appoint School Inspectors on look after charge in exigencies of public service, it should be done on the basis of seniority of Principals/teachers”.

7.               Admittedly, at least one person namely Sh. Mahipal Singh, a person with disability (VH),  is junior to the complainant, is working as School Inspector on Current Duty Charge(CDC).  The respondents should have given the justification for his continuance in the post of Inspector on Current Duty Charge(CDC) despite being junior to the complainant and the observation of this Court, and why the complainant who is senior to Sh. Mahipal Singh was not considered.       

8.              In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent is directed to examine the matter thoroughly taking into consideration the representation of the complainant and other relevant facts and take a final view on his prayer explaining the reasons for giving the Current Duty Charge to a junior person in preference to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and inform the complainant by way of a speaking order under intimation to this Court.  As regards regularization of ad-hoc promotion of the complainant to the post of Principal, the same be considered as per extant provisions of the relevant rules and instructions issued by the appropriate Government. It may be ensured that no discrimination be meted out to the complainant on the ground of his disability as provided  under section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

        The matter is disposed of accordingly.  Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30th day of March, 2017.     

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                                                                        Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities