Durgesh Mishra Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education | Case No. 2569/1024/2022/04/5412-5413 | Dated: 25-05-2022

 In the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

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

Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2569/1024/2022/04/5412-5413                 Dated: 25-05-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Durgesh Mishra
Flat No.42, Krishna Apartment, 
Block BH(East), Shalimar Bagh, 
New Delhi-110088. ............Complainant

                                                      Versus

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

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 70% locomotor disability and a TGT (English) in a school under Dte. of Education vide complaint received from the Office of Chief Commissioner of PwDs on 13.04.2022 (e-mail), under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, alleged that he was not being paid the Transport Allowance (TA) at the double the normal rate as per Govt. of India Rules since his joining Dte. of Education and thus deprived of the right as a person with disability.  CCPD also forwarded the same complaint vide e-mail dated 18.04.2022 which was received by their department from an NGO Toshiyas, Bihar.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 19.04.2022 followed by reminder dated 04.05.2022. Head of the GBSS School, Shalamar Village on behalf of DOE vide letter dated 12.05.2022 replied that the complainant joined DOE on 27.08.2020 as TGT (English) under “General Category” through DSSSB.  On 26.12.2020, complainant applied to change his category from General to P.H. for which the file was forwarded before the Director of Education for change of category with the recommendation to consider the request of the complainant.  As per the rectification in the MIS online system of DOE, the category “PH/Ortho” was accepted by the department on 14.09.2021 and accordingly the benefit of double TA was released to the complainant w.e.f. 01.09.2021.  

3. The reply sent by the HOS, GBSS School, Shalamar Village was sent to the complainant vide this office letter dated 17.05.2022.  The complainant was not satisfied with the said reply.  The HOS was contacted on telephone and the issue was discussed at length and it was stressed that there is no fault of the complainant if the online system of the office of respondent approved the request of the complainant at a later date. 

4. After perusing the complaint, the reply submitted by the respondent and discussion with the HOS, it was observed that the complainant requested the respondent for change of category from “General” to “Ph-Ortho” on 26.12.2020 which was accepted by the respondent on 14.09.2021.  In view of this, it is recommended that the complainant be provided the benefit of double the Transport Allowance with effect from the date he informed/requested for change of category to “PH-Ortho”.

5. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016 i.e. 26.12.2020.  

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of May, 2022. 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities

Babu Lal Gurjar Vs. DCP Outer District & Anr. | Case No.2477/1111/2022/01/5310-5312 | Dated:18-05-2022

 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, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2477/1111/2022/01/5310-5312                Dated:18-05-22

In the matter of:

Sh. Babu Lal Gurjar,
3060, 2nd Floor, Mahindra Park,  
Rani Bagh, New Delhi-110034.
(Email: babu21383@gmail.com)                                  …………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,  
Outer District, 
Guru Harkrishan Marg, Maulana Azad Society,
Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitam Pura, 
New Delhi-110034.                       ........... Respondent No. 1

Smt. Poonam & Relatives
(as stated in complaint),
B-268, Jwalapuri, Near Amalwas School,
New Delhi-110087. ........... Respondent No. 2

Date of hearing:   17.05.2022

Present: Sh. Babu Lal Gurjar, Complainant

Sh. Kishore Kumar, ASI, CAW Cell, PS Pitam Pura on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Smt. Poonam, Sh. Kamal Kumar, Sh. Hari Chand and Sh. Rakesh Tanvar, Advocate, on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The complainant, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability, filed a complaint dated 29.12.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.  The complainant vide his complaint submitted that he is being continuously harassed mentally, physically and financially by his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws.  He requested this Court to interfere and save him from the torture by his wife and in-laws. 

2. The matter was taken up with Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 12.01.2022 followed by reminders dated 17.02.2022 and 06.04.2022.  However, no response was received.  Therefore, a hearing was scheduled on 17.05.2022.  Respondent No. 2 was also impleaded.

3. During the hearing, the complainant reiterated his submissions and alleged that he fears threat of life by his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws.  Representative of Respondent No. 1 submitted reply dated 10.05.2022 during the hearing.  It was informed that Smt. Poonam wife of the complainant had filed a complaint dated 06.12.2021 in CAW Cell and alleged that the complainant is demanding a dowry of Rs.15 lakhs and a car.  As the demand of the complaint was not fulfilled, he started mental and physical torture to Smt. Poonam.  The concerned ASI of CAW Cell tried to counsel both the parties and explained the legal position in the matter.  Next date of hearing in CAW Cell is 20.05.2022.  It was also submitted in the reply that the complainant had also filed complaint in PS Rani Bagh dated 19.09.2021 and 01.11.2021 against his wife Smt. Poonam and his in-laws which was investigated and not substantiated and was closed.

4. The Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 filed reply dated 17.05.2022 during the hearing.  Vide reply, it was submitted that the allegations made by the complainant were baseless, false, frivolous and misguiding.  It was also added that Smt. Poonam had filed a case of Domestic Violence Act U/s Cr.PC 125 in the Hon’ble Rohini Court and the next date of hearing in this case is 23.06.2022. Further, CAW Cell had also about to finalize FIR against the complainant U/s Cr. PC 498A, 406 and other sections which were filed by Smt. Poonam.  It was alleged that the complainant had filed the present complaint just to divert the ongoing proceedings in the above mentioned cases.  Further, it is the complainant who is threatening  Smt. Poonam, demanding dowry and torturing her in every possible way and is also having extra marital affairs for which a CD was attached with the reply.  It was further alleged by Smt. Poonam that the complainant is disabled in certificate only.  He walks easily without stick on uneven roads and using this as a tool to save him.

5. After considering the submissions of the complainant & respondents and due deliberations and discussion, the Court observed that the allegations made by the complainant are not substantiated and as the matter is sub-judice in the Hon’ble Rohini Court and CAW Cell and the Court will decide the matter and it is to be abided by all concerned, the case is closed in this Court.

6. The Court further directs the complainant not to pressurise his wife and family especially when the case is sub-judice.  The Court also directs the representative of Respondent No.1 to ensure that nobody threatens the complainant and take immediate action if any incident reported by the complainant.

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18th day of May, 2022. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Mohak Kumar Vs. The Director, Directorate of Education & Anr. | Case No.2255/1011/2021/07/5319-5321 | Dated:18-05-2022

 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-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2255/1011/2021/07/5319-5321              Dated:18-05-2022

In the matter of:

Sh. Mohak Kumar,
S/o Parmesh Kumar,
173, Nehru Apartments, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019. …………….Complainant                            

Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi-110054        ...............Respondent No.1

The Secretary,  
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092                   ...............Respondent No. 2

Date of Hearing: 17.05.2022

Present: Sh.Parmesh Kumar, F/o Sh. Mohak Kumar alongwith Sh. Rajan Mani, Advocate for Complainant.

Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj, S.O., Sh. Dhiraj Tanwar, DA on behalf of Respondent  No. 1.

Sh. V.P. Jha, Dy. Secretary, DSSSB  and Sh. K.K.Singh, SO on behalf of Respondent No. 2

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 50% intellectual disability filed a complaint dated 28.06.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act and alleged that Directorate of Education had forwarded a requisition for filling up of 434 vacancies of Assistant Teacher ((Primary), Post Code 42/21, which was advertised by DSSSB vide Advertisement No. 02/21 dated 12.05.2021 but no reservation was granted to persons with intellectual disability in spite of the fact that the post of Assistant Teacher (Special Education) and Teacher Primary were identified for persons with intellectual disability as per S.No. 1556-1557 respectively of the list of identified posts issued vide Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India’s notification No. 38-16/2020-DD-III dated 04.01.2021.    

2. Complainant vide subsequent complaint dated 08.04.2022, had further alleged that  the DSSSB had already conducted recruitment exam for the above Post Code 02/21 on 07.03.22 in which the complainant was denied his right to avail the services of a scribe on production of his Medical Certificate.  Thus the respondents had not only denied him benefit of reservation and scribe but also had denied the equal opportunity to participate in the selection process for the above post code.  

3 The complaint dated 28.06.2021 was taken up with respondent No. 1 & 2 vide Notice dated 08.07.2021 followed by reminders dated 31.08.2021,18.02.222 & 09.03.2022 & 25.03.2022. Subsequent complaint dated 08.04.22 was taken up with the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.04.2022.  

4. DOE vide letter dated 27.12.2021 informed that the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) is not identified for Intellectual disability which is identified under Program Support Teacher at S.No. 509 under Group B.  Further the particular S.No. 1556 & 1557 of notification dated 04.01.2021 is meant for the post of Asstt. Teacher (Special Education) and Teacher Primary (all subject and Special Education) that too under the Group C but the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in DoE, GNCT is under Group B. 

5. Complainant vide rejoinder dated 08.02.22  submitted that the reply furnished by respondent is legally incorrect and unsustainable in view of the stipulation in Note 5 of the M/o of Social Justice and Empowerment Notification dated 04.01.2021 which states as follows:

“Note 5: If a post having identical nature and place of job with respect to any identified post, the post should be construed to be identified even if the post has a different nomenclature and / or is placed in a different group.”

Therefore,  it was submitted that the post of Asstt. Teacher (Primary) advertised by the respondent is also identified for persons with intellectual disabilities.  The posts at Sr. No. 1556 & 1557 are the relevant entries in the notification dated 04.01.2021 corresponding to the post advertised by the Respondent and the fact that the posts at Sr. No. 1556 & 1557 are listed in Group C whereas the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) advertised by the Respondents is a Group B post, is not relevant in view of the stipulation provided in Note 5 hereinabove.

6. However in the absence of any satisfactory reply furnished by Respondent No. 1 i.e. the DOE and non-submission of any reply by Respondent No. 2 i.e. the DSSSB, a hearing was scheduled on 17.05.2022 and all parties submitted their respective facts as under:

(i) Advocate appeared for Complainant reiterated his written submissions and requested that a  Special Recruitment Drive be conducted within next three months for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) to be reserved for persons with intellectual disabilities, including six current vacancies and calculated backlog vacancies and respondents be directed to design a special selection process accommodating the particular needs of persons with intellectual disabilities and designed in consultation with experts in the field of intellectual disability which may include specially designed aptitude tests and in-person evaluations having regard to the cognitive and behavioural limitations of persons with intellectual disabilities. He further claimed that reservation for persons with disabilities in the advertisement dated 12.05.2021 must be made according to the prevailing law as on that date.  He also referred Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement dated 07.07.2010 in the case of Ravi Prakash Gupta Vs. Union of India (2010) 7 SCC 626 vide which SC held that delay in identification of posts for any category of disability would not exempt that category from reservation, but rather the vacancies would need to be reserved and filled after the posts are identified for that category. 

(ii) Representative of Respondent No. 1 reiterated their written submission given on dated 27.12.21 and added that the department had found the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) more suitable and identical as per S.No. 509 and their PBR Committee also recommended the same. 

(iii) Representatives of Respondent No.2 vide submission dated 12.05.22 informed that the complainant had  appeared for the examination held for above Post Code 42/21 on 07.03.222 in Ist Shift at Centre IDZ1 GT Karnal Road, Delhi.  As per record complainant had applied under the category of UR (PH/VH) and the allegation levelled by complainant is factually incorrect that he was not allowed to avail the service of scribe.  Board had followed all the  guidelines for conducting written examination for persons with disabilities issued by the Govt. of India from time to time and it had also been mentioned at Clause No. 15 of general instructions for candidates to be appeared in online examination for the year 2022 vide No. F.55(302)/Exam/DSSSB/2021/10 dated 04.01.2022.  Further after examining the record of the said centre it was revealed that scribes were allowed to the PwD candidates in accordance with OM Dated 26.02.2013 issued by the M/o Social Justice & Empowerment as a proof details of two PwD candidates having Roll No. 111504200032 and 111504200012 were attached.  It was further informed that as per reports of the examination functionaries deployed at the centres on the date of examination, no such incident was mentioned as claimed by complainant that he had not been allowed to avail facility of scribe on 07.03.22.  For the allegation of complainant that he was being forced to wait at the centre till completion of the examination it was informed that as per practice in the Board no such permission is allowed except in case of medical emergency.  

7. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommended as under:

(i) Court has observed that respondent No. 1 should have considered existing guidelines / instructions relating to reservation for persons with intellectual disabilities.  

(ii) Court also agreed with the fact that category of posts as mentioned at Sr. No. 1557 as per M/o Social Justice and Empowerment GOI’s notification dated 04.01.2021 should not have been debarred by Respondent No.1 in the instant case.  Though it was brought out by Respondent No. 2 i.e. DSSSB that in the instant case, the complainant had wrongly filled the disability category as VH while it was intellectual disability for him. Upon questioning it was replied that as there was no provision of intellectual disability in the “Online” form thus, VH category was written.  In any case this was not justified and the complainant was advised from refraining to use wrong category of disability in future.  Thus, it is recommended that Respondent No. 1 should consider and initiate the process of conducting a ‘Special Recruitment Drive’ in future for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in connection with persons with intellectual disabilities if such vacancies are still existing or lying vacant. It should also be ensured that the above Special Recruitment Drive be designed and conducted with the help of some domain experts / professionals in the field of intellectual disabilities in order to provide all the reasonable accommodations to persons with intellectual disabilities.

(iii) Respondent No. 1 & 2  are also advised to conduct training programmes for their personnel for sensitization and awareness  of RPwD Act, 2016 and instructions / guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment  and Govt. from time to time so that persons with disabilities including persons with intellectual disabilities are not discriminated or deprived of their entitlements.

(iv) Court does not find the plea of complainant justifiable as there is no evident proof that he was not allowed to avail the service of scribe by respondent No. 2 as complainant appeared for the above examination under the UR (PH/VH) category instead of the fact that his medical certificate belongs to Intellectual Disability.

8. The case is disposed of. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this  18th day of May, 2022.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Dr. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi Vs. The Chief Managing Director, IAS Baba & Anr. | Case No.2364/1101/2021/09/5227-5229 | Dated:12-05-22

 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, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2364/1101/2021/09/5227-5229           Dated:12-05-22

In the matter of:

Dr. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi,
H.No 241, Gali No. 11, B-Block,
Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084.                         …………..Complainant

Versus

The Chief Managing Director,
IAS Baba, 22B, 3rd Floor, Bada Bazar Road, 
Rajinder Nagar, 
New Delhi-110060.                      ...................Respondent No.1


The Deputy Commissioner
Karol Bagh Zone, 
North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 
DB Gupta Road, Christian Colony, 
Block 17 B, Dev Nagar, Anand Parbat,
New Delhi-110005.                                            ....................Respondent No.2

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 65% locomotor disability vide email dated 20.09.2021 filed a complaint under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding inaccessibility of the premises of IAS Baba Coaching Institute Karol Bagh, Delhi where the complainant had applied for Mock Test for UPSC Civil Service Examination which was scheduled to be held on 22.09.2021 & 26.09.2021. He also attached photos of above inaccessible building in support of his claim. Thus, he requested this Court to pass proper instructions to the CMD, IAS Baba Coaching Institute to make the above premises accessible and provide barrier free environment for him and other persons with disabilities.

 2. The matter was taken up with the Respondents vide letter dated 27.09.2021 followed by reminders dated 27.10.2021 and 15.02.2022.  The brief facts of the case were mentioned in the Interim Order passed on 26.04.2022. 

3. It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 40 to 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandate the appropriate Government to ensure accessibility of physical environment, transport and information and communications technologies, goods, equipments and services provided to public in urban and rural areas for persons with disabilities as per the standards laid down by the Central Government within 5 years from the date of notification of the Rules. Further Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 requires that the standards for public buildings as specified in the “Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons” issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development in 2016 are also needs to be followed by all concerned. 

4. The court reserved the final recommendations in the instant case till receipt of the response / action taken report to be submitted by Respondent No. 1 & 2 in order to ascertain the fact that the accessibility standards as per prescribed sections of RPwD Act, 2016 and RPwD Rules, 2017 are being followed in appropriate manner. 

5. Subsequent to the Interim Order dated 26.04.2022, Asstt. Engineer (Bldg.) North DMC / Respondent No. 2 vide its Inspection Report dated 06.05.22 submitted that a coaching Institute is being run in the name of IAS Baba at 2nd, 22B Pusa Road, Karol Bagh.  The above building is old and occupied, however some measures like provision of lift, low floor toilets were existed at the new site but the present provisions do not fulfil the laid down criteria as railing was found missing which is mandatory as per prescribed Sections of the RPwD Act / Rules.  Further it was informed that the owner/ occupier of the said Institute had already been instructed to comply with all the guidelines / mandatory provisions of the RPwD Act / Rules on urgent basis. 

6. Respondent No. 1 i.e. IAS Baba Coaching Institute vide letter dated 04.05.22 informed that on complainant’s request received through e-mail for allocation of an accessible and disabled friendly testing centre, they offered him an alternative arrangement with an option of writing the exam at his place by sending question paper through email and complainant was also agreed for the same.  Though the complainant appeared for mock test by an alternative method as opted by him and had already been refunded the due amount paid by him, now only with an ulterior motive he had approached this Court. Thus, the respondent has not violated any of the loss which affects the complainant.

7. In view of the facts of the case, submissions of the complainant and respondents, existing sections of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and RPwD Rules, the Court recommended as under:

(i) Court observed that it is the duty and responsibility of the Respondent 1 & 2 to make a barrier free environment for persons with disabilities including complainant by maintaining accessibility standards keeping in view of the prescribed Sections of the RPwD Act, 2016 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. 

(ii) Respondent No. 1 is directed to fulfil all the laid down criteria and also arrange to provide equal opportunity to persons with disabilities in the Coaching Centre by registering its “Equal Opportunity Policy” with the Office of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as required under Section 21 of the RPwD Act, 2016 & Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. 

(iii) Respondent No. 2 should lay down the time frame for Respondent No.1 in order to accomplish and fulfil the laid down criteria as per RPwD Act, 2016 and also send an ATR in this regard to this Court. 

8. The case is closed with the above recommendations and an action taken be intimated to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12th day of May, 2022.  

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee) 

                               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Mahipal Vs. The Director of Education, North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 2391/1021/2021/10/4932-4934 | Dated: 26-04-2022

 In the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002

Phone-23216001-04, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

 [Vested with powers of Civil Court

under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2391/1021/2021/10/4932-4934                Dated:26-04-22     

 In the matter of:

Shri Mahipal
C/o Shri Shiv Kumar Saini,
Kh. No. 87/3, Ist Floor, Old Lal Dora Village Lampur,
Near Shiv Mandir, Delhi-110040
(Email: mahipal.s2304@gmail.com)                ……………..Complainant

Versus

The Director of Education,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Education Department, HQ,
15th, Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002.       ..…………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing :   26.04.2022 

Present: Shri Mahipal, Complainant

                Shri Dinesh Ram, School Inspector on behalf of respondent

ORDER

The complainant, a person with 40% visually impaired disability, filed a complaint dated 01.10.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.  The complainant inter-alia alleged that he was deprived of his rights and benefits like regular promotion to the post of Principal and ad-hoc promotion to the post of School Inspector though he has been working in the same capacity for long.  His pay anomalies have also not been rectified by his department despite several representations made by him.

2. The matter was taken up with Director of Education, North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC) vide letter dated 18.10.2021 followed by reminders dated 01.12.2021 & 12.1.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 10.2.2022. However, no response was received from the respondent and therefore a hearing was scheduled on 26.04.2022. 

3. During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions and added that he is performing duties against vacancies of 13 School Inspectors alone.  He is not being promoted to the post of Principal on regular basis resulting in non promotion to the post of School Inspector on adhoc basis.  The complainant represented many times to the department to remove this anomaly and also regarding his pay, without any response from the department.

4. Respondent submitted reply by hand in the Court on 26th April, 2022 during the hearing as under:- 

(i) It is a departmental policy and regular promotion to the post of Principal & Adhoc promotion to the post of School Inspector is not given to any junior of the complainant.

(ii) Regarding anomalies in the pay of the complainant, it was submitted that as per Rule-20 (Seniority and Promotion), financial upgradation under MACPS shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to this seniority position.  As such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay/Level under the MACPS.  However, in cases where a senior Government servant granted MACP to a higher Grade Pay before the 1st day of  January, 2016 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is granted MACP to the higher Level on or after the 1st day of January, 2016, the pay of senior Government servant in the revised pay structure shall be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his junior in that higher post and such stepping up shall be done with effect from the date of MACP of the Junior Government servant subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:-

(a) Both the Junior and Senior Government servant belong to the same cadre and they are in the same pay Level on grant of MACP;

(b) The existing pay structure and the revised pay structure of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical; 

(c) The Senior Government servants at the time of grant of MACP are drawing equal or more pay than the Junior; 

(d)  The anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such grant of MACP in the revised pay structure:

Provided that if the Junior Officer was drawing more pay in the existing pay structure than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, the provisions of this sub-rule shall not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.

(iii) Education Department, North DMC is facing the acute shortage of School Inspector. After unification/recruitment/promotion, more School Inspectors will be posted in Narela Zone.  However, if complainant is not comfortable with the post of School Inspector, he may request the Department to withdraw the LAC order of School Inspector.

5. It is observed by the Court that the respondent is non sensitive and non cooperative towards the persons with disabilities and do not bother to respond to the letters from the Court even, which is viewed seriously and it is urged that timely reply be given by the concerned Director of Education of North Delhi Municipal Corporation. Taking into consideration the grievance of the complainant and the reply submitted by the respondent, the following recommendations are made:-

(i) With regard to the reply of the respondent regarding shortage of manpower especially for School Inspectors in the North DMC, this Court takes serious view of this lacuna as “Primary education is the pillar of society.  Imparting quality primary education to the students of NCT of Delhi mainly from Middle, Lower middle and the BPL category is of utmost importance to bring in social harmony and equality.”  It is unfortunate that this important facet is being ignored, overlooked and not given priority by the Corporation so far.  The Court urges to Commissioner, North DMC (Commissioner, MCD) to take note of this grave anomaly and situation and fill up all the vacant posts of the School Inspectors, Teachers, Principals etc. so as to ensure that quality education is imparted to all the primary level students in the NCT of Delhi.

(ii) In the instant case, the complainant who is a Senior Teacher in the MCD for the past 19 years and have been performing the duties on Current Duty Charge (CDC) as School Inspector for the last 9 years.  Due to shortage of School Inspectors, he has to perform duties of 13 School Teachers who should have been designated by the Corporation to look after 176 schools, currently under the charge of the complainant. Is it humanly possible to do justification for one CDC School Inspector to perform duties meant for 13? This moot question needs to be answered by Commissioner, North DMC (Commissioner, MCD). There are various categories of School Inspectors such as Nursery, Physical Education, Science and General and against vacancies of 13 School Inspectors, the complainant is the only one holding posts for past several years.   This situation is unacceptable.  The Court directs the Commissioner, North DMC (Commissioner, MCD) to immediately pay attention to this aspect and start the recruitment process to fill up the vacant posts of School Inspectors and submit ATR within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order as per Section 81 of the RPwD, Act 2016. 

(iii) The Court also directs the Commissioner, North DMC (Commissioner, MCD) to address the grievance of the complainant with respect to anomalies regarding his pay and granting the complainant adhoc post of School Inspector as per eligibility & performance upgrading from Current Duty Charge (CDC). There should not be any discrimination against a person with disability as per the RPwD Act, 2016. ATR in this regard (removing pay anomaly and granting adhoc post as deemed fit) is to be  submitted within 45 days from the receipt of this order.   

6.   Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 26th day of April, 2022.  

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to :-

Commissioner, North DMC (Commissioner, MCD),            Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002, with respect to above recommendations.

Anju Sharma Vs. The Chairman, DSSSB | Case No.2374/1040/2021/09/4865-66 | Dated: 20-04-2022

 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, Email: comdis.delhi@delhi.gov.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.2374/1040/2021/09/4865-66                            Dated: 20-04-2022

In the matter of:

Ms. Anju Sharma

D/o Sh. M.R. Sharma, 
WZ-1095, Street No. 10,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, 
New Delhi-110045. (Email: anjusharmamca@yahoo.co.in)                      …………Complainant

Versus 

The Chairman

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092. (Email: chairmandsssb.delhi@nic.in)             . ........... Respondent 

    

Date of hearing:   19.04.2022

Present: Ms. Anju Sharma, Complainant

Sh. V.P. Jha, Deputy Secretary (Exam) and Sh. K.K. Singh, Section Officer (Exam), DSSSB, on behalf of respondent 

ORDER

        The complainant, a person with 65% locomotor disability, filed a complaint dated 17.09.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.  The complainant vide her complaint submitted that she applied against the vacant post of TGT (English) (Female) as advertised by the DSSSB vide their Advertisement No. 03/21 published on 27.05.2021.  It was further submitted that the venue of aforesaid examination centre allotted to her was far away and due to heavy traffic jam and water logging, she could not reach the examination centre on time and therefore could not appear for the examination.  The complainant requested this Court to direct the respondent for re-conducting the said examination in a time bound manner.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 29.09.2021 followed by reminders dated 25.10.2021 and 09.03.2022.  The respondent vide its reply dated 16.10.2021 submitted that online CBT examination for the said post was conducted on 14.09.2021 in 03 shifts and the exam of the complainant was scheduled in 1st shift (08:30 AM to 10:30 AM). In the instructions for the candidates, in the admit card, it was clearly mentioned that the entry of the candidates to the examination centre will be closed at the end of the gate closing time as mentioned in E-admit card.  No candidate was allowed to enter the examination centre after the end of reporting time. Further, to ensure campus and network security and avoiding any malpractice, late entry of candidate was disallowed by the Board. It was further submitted that the admit card of the candidate revealed that she applied under UR category and accordingly she was not allotted centres designated for PH candidates. Rain is a natural phenomenon. Water lodging/potholes/heavy traffic jams on roads are beyond the control of DSSSB. Further, all other candidates including several PwDs took the examination, besides there was no provision to conduct any repeat examination. Therefore, it is undesirable to relax any conditions in the recruitment examination for one person or a small group.

3. Vide rejoinder dated 23.11.2021, the complainant expressed disagreement with the reply of the respondent and reiterated her submissions. Further, she submitted that she applied under UR category because the option for PwD category was de-activated by DSSSB in the application form. The respondent vide letter dated 15.12.2021 was directed to submit comments on some points.     

4. The respondent vide letter dated 12.03.2022 submitted comments on the main three points as under:- 

(i) The post of TGT English-Female under post code 51/21 was identified suitable for the PwD candidates for the category VH( Sub-category LV. B) & OH (Sub- Category OL, BL, OAL, OA ). As per OARS details available, 76 PH candidates have applied in that category. As per OARS, the complainant had applied in both the post codes 40/21 & 51/21 by obtaining benefit of age relaxation in FTGT (Female TGT) sub-category and now is claiming that the option for applying in PwD category was kept deactivated in application form by the DSSSB. In this regard, as per report received from NIC vide email dated 09.02.2022 has confirmed that the option to apply in PH sub-category was available in application form on 01.07.2022 on the day complainant applied for the said post code. Some female applicants as per OARS had successfully applied in PH (OH) subcategory on 01.07.2021. 

(ii) As per record, Online Exam of complainant was scheduled on 14.09.2021 in the first shift (08:30AM to 10:30 AM) at centre Edisto Online Solutions, Near Mundka Metro Station, Mundka, Delhi. In the first shift of exam on 14.09.2021, Two centres i.e. iON Digital Zone iDZ 1 GT Karnal Road (TC Code-7937) and iON Digital Zone iDZ 2 GT Karnal Road (TC Code- 7938) were designated for PH Candidates. The details of the appeared candidates in PH category on these centres are as under:

S. No	TC Name	No. of allotted candidates	No. of appeared candidates	%
1.	iON Digital Zone iDZ (TC-7937)	37	23	62.16%
2.	iON Digital Zone iDZ (TC- 7938)	39	22	56.40%

Further, being confidential matter, the Roll No. and Category of PH candidates could not be disclosed at this stage as the final result of the post code has not been declared so far. Moreover, it is also to mention here that as per the admit Card of the candidate, it reveals that she had applied under UR category, accordingly she was treated as normal candidate and not allotted the centre designated for PH Candidate.

(iii) The online exam of DSSSB is being conducted by EdCIL (India) Ltd.   as per MOU signed between DSSSB & EDCIL. The centres for the examination are being selected by EdCIL in consultation with DSSSB. Further, directions are issued to the agency to ensure proper facility for PH candidates in accordance with directions of Govt. issued from time to time in this regard. 

5. Upon considering the replies submitted by the respondent and rejoinder by the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 19.04.2022 in the matter. 

6. During the hearing, the complainant and the representative of the respondent reiterated their submissions.  It was brought to the notice by the complainant that DSSSB Officials do not respond and co-operate with PwDs for any clarification, or approach for any problem in filling up the form etc.    It was submitted by the respondent that to maintain confidentiality, candidates are not allowed inside the DSSSB premises.

7. The complainant also alleged that while filling up the form she could not apply in the PH (Sub category) as it was not available in the system while representative of respondent clarified that this aspect was duly checked from NIC and found that the system was correct and the provision of PH (Sub category) was in existence.  To prove the same, the respondent submitted that a similar PwD candidate who was two years elder to the complainant had applied for the same post under PH (Sub category) on the same date on which the complainant applied.  This clarification and proof was duly brought to the notice of the complainant. 

8. After considering the submissions of the complainant & respondent and due deliberations and discussion, the Court observed that the request of the complainant for re-conducting the said examination cannot be acceded to. It was further recommended as under:- 

(i) The respondent should find the solution to these types of problems wherein a PwD candidate is able to redress any genuine grievance  or problem. Towards the same, DSSSB is advised to nominate and appoint a Grievance Redressal Offic er (GRO) immediately to deal with the grievance of PwDs and the details be circulated for information of PwDs, as per the RPwD Act, 2016.

(ii) It was brought out by the representative of the respondent that there is likelihood of examination of TGT in various languages which will be advertised in near future.  It was directed that a special endeavour is to be made by the Department to intimate the complainant so that she is not left out and the online system should be re-checked by the IT branch of the respondent that it is full proof and proper guidelines to that effect should be widely circulated for the information of candidates.  A provision be kept for a special window for PwDs to sort out any type of issue regarding problems in filling up the online form etc.  

9. The case is closed with the above recommendations and action taken to be intimated to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the Act.

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 20th day of April, 2022.  

Ranjan Mukherjee) 

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Jai Pal F/o Pawan Kumar Vs. The Secretary DSSSB & Anr. | Case No.1767/1011/2020/02/4867-69 | Dated: 20-04-2022

 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-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No.1767/1011/2020/02/4867-69                      Dated:20-04-22

In the matter of:

Sh. Jai Pal F/o Pawan Kumar,
A-64, F-3 Ramprastha Colony,
Ghaziabad, UP-201011. …………….Complainant                       

Versus

The Secretary,  
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092                 ...............Respondent No. 1


The Director,
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT Delhi
Old Secretariat
Delhi-110054        ...............Respondent No.2

Date of Hearing: 19.04.2022

Present: Sh. Jai Pal Singh alongwith Sh. S.B. Singh, DA for Complainant.

Sh. Biju Raj E. Dy. Secretary and Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singh, SO  on behalf of Respondent No. 1

Sh. Rahul Dev, Legal Assistant, Sh. Rajan, Lumb, ASO on behalf of Respondent  No. 2.

ORDER

Sh. Jai Pal Singh filed a complaint dated 31.01.2020 on behalf of his son Sh. Pawan Kumar Singh,  a person with 100% hearing impairment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Vide the complaint, it was submitted that vacancies for the Post of TGT (Drawing) Post Code 90/20 was advertised by DSSSB vide Advertisement No. 04/20, No.F4(361)/P&P/DSSSB/2020/Advt./3100 dated 04.01.2020, but the reservation for hearing handicapped persons was not granted instead reservation for VH(8) and OH(7) were mentioned in the advertisement. Also, in the past the same problem occurred in the advertisement of Guest Drawing Teacher published by Education Deptt. for the Session 2017-18. He approached this Court for the same reason and his son became eligible to apply for above post and was also selected as this Court directed DOE vide Order dated 25.07.2018 to make provision in the online application for Guest Drawing Teachers as per Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Notification No. 16-15/2010-DD-III dated 29.07.2013.   Thus, he requested to take appropriate action for granting reservation to hearing handicapped persons and for updating the website accordingly so that his son and other hearing impaired persons would be able to apply for the post of drawing teacher. 

2. The matter was taken up with respondents vide letter dated 13.02.2020 followed by reminder dated 26.05.2020 for submission of their comments. A reply was received from Directorate of Education, Establishment-IV Branch on 31.08.2020 vide which it was informed that HH(Hard of Hearing) category is not identified for the post of drawing teacher in DOE.  As per policy of DOE, the post of Drawing Teacher is not identified and not recruited under the category `(b) Deaf and Hard of Hearing’.  However, the reservation of 4% was equally divided between category (a) Blindness and low vision and (c) Locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy  considering the fact that these posts belongs to teaching categories in which individual has to interact with students in order to teach visual subject with explanation. 

3. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 12.10.2020 submitted that the persons of hearing handicapped were found identified in KVS,NVS in other states of India as per Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s Notification No. 16-15/2010-DD-III dated 29.07.2013.  Thus, hearing handicapped persons are teaching drawing subject not only in all over India but they are also teaching drawing even in the schools under Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi against regular posts.  

 4. Further Directorate of Education vide their letters dated 02.12.2020  addressed to DSSSB informed that DOE has examined the matter in accordance with the notification No. 16-15/2010 DD-III dated 29.07.2013 and list of posts identified for being held by persons with disabilities issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and found that “Categories of disabled are suitable for the job – OA, OL, OAL, BL, HH” as per Sl.No. 85 (Designation –Art Teacher/Instructor) and requested DSSSB to make necessary amendment in advertisement in respect of Post Code 90/20 (Drawing Teacher) as OA, OL,OAL, BL, HH instead of OL,BL,OAL, LV, OA, B and amendment in the Column of “Number of Vacancies:”  as PWD(HH-8 and OH-7) instead of PWD (VH-8  and OH-7). 

5. The complainant vide his rejoinder dated 30.09.2021 informed that  DSSSB has not amended vacancy of drawing teacher despite receiving letter of amendment from User Department i.e. Directorate of Education. The complainant again requested that appropriate action be taken keeping in view of the welfare of deprived candidates of HH category.  In view of the above, a hearing was scheduled on 19.04.2022 and all parties submitted their respective facts as under:

(i) Complainant reiterated his written submission and added that persons with HH category should also be given benefit of reservation as per notifications dated 29.07.2013 & 04.01.2021 issued by M/o Social Justice and Empowerment.

(ii) Representative of Respondent No. 1 submitted their written submission dated 18.04.2022 and informed that there was an apparent deviation in the stand of DOE and it also reflected from several communications received from them in respect of Advertisement No. 04/20. As no clear cut break up of PwD vacancies and suitability was furnished by the Dte. of Education, which was needed by DSSSB to proceed further, vide letter No. F.1(512)/P&P/DSSSB/19/5576 dated 26.08.2021, it was requested to provided clear break up of PwD vacancies alongwith suitability of PwD candidates for 228 vacancies for the post of Drawing Teacher (Post Code 90/20), but no reply was furnished by DOE.   Thus, DSSSB was left with no option but to conduct the examination for the above post code on 30.11.2021 on the basis of initial advertisement, which in turn was based on the indent submitted by DOE.  He then suggested that fresh recruitment is going to be out shortly as Dte. of Education vide letter No. DE/E/I/ Requisition/ Drawing/ 2021/471-475 dated 09.02.2021 has requested to add 223 vacancies with 228 vacancies of Post Code 90-20 wherein HH category is also included,  complainant can apply for the same. 

(iii) Representatives of Respondent No.2 submitted their written submission dated 18.04.2022 and informed that the clear break up of PwD vacancies alongwith the suitability of PwD candidates for 228 vacancies for the post of Drawing Teacher advertised vide post code 90/20 under advertisement No. 04/2020 as asked by DSSSB vide letter No.1(512)/ P&P/DSSSB/ 19/5576 dated 26.08.2021 had already been provided to the DSSSB vide letter dated F.No. DE.04(5)/127/E-IV/DRG/2019/147 Dated 31.03.2022.

6. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, the court recommended as under:

(i)  The Court observed that Respondent No. 2 i.e. Directorate of Education had not taken due care as per existing policy relating to reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, while forwarding  requisitions / amendments to DSSSB in the instant case.  The clear breakup of PwD vacancies alongwith suitability of PwD candidates for the post code 90/20 under advertisement No. 04/2020 was sent to DSSSB on 31.03.2022 while the examination for the above post code was already conducted on 31.11.2021.  This negligence on the part of DOE delayed the recruitment process in the instant case and thereby caused undue harassment to the complainant as he could not appear in the above examination.  In order to avoid such negligence in future, Director, DOE is advised to conduct regular training programmes for its Officers / officials to make them aware of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act and existing RRs relating to persons with disabilities. 

(ii) Respondent No. 1  i.e. DSSSB is also advised to take expeditious action and complete the process of conducting  fresh examination for the above post code based on the requisition of Directorate of Education dated 09.02.21 so that the complainant and other equivalent persons with disabilities including HH category are not discriminated or deprived of their entitlements.

(iii) Complainant is advised to apply for the fresh recruitment to be conducted shortly by DSSSB for the above post code.

7. The case is disposed of. 

8. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19th day of April, 2022.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities