IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SCORE FOUNDATION and ANR. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Sinha, Advocate with Ms.Sharika Surendran,
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
EMPOWERMENT and ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Saqib, Advocate for R-1
Ms.Nidhi Raman, Advocate with Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate for R-4
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for R-5
Ms.Sidhi Arora, Advocate for Ms.Madhu Tewatia, Advocate for NDMC
ALL INDIA CONFEDERATION OF BLIND ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Deepesh Aneja, Advocate
DELHI SUBORDIANTE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD and ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Nidhi Raman, Advocate with Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
for R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-8
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for R-5
Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for R-6
Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate R-7
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R
1. The two writ petitions concern the implementation of the beneficial
provisions applicable to the differentlyabled persons as per the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995.
2. As per Section 32 of the said Act, the appropriate Government is
charged with a statutory duty to identify posts in establishments which
can be reserved for the persons who are differentlyabled and the said
identification has to be periodically reviewed taking into consideration
the developments in technology. The mandate of Section 33 is that for
the posts identified for the differentlyabled persons reservation has to
be provided; which is vacancy based. Not less than 3% reservation has to
be effected. The differentlyabled persons who would be entitled to the
benefit of the reservation would be visually differently abled persons,
hearing differentlyabled persons as also the physically differentlyabled
3. As regards the duty charged with under Section 32 of the Act, albeit
grudgingly, the posts which can be held by the differentlyabled persons
have been identified and notified. The same would be as per Annexure P-4
to W.P.(C) No.2848/2014.
4. The notification in question was issued on July 29, 2013.
5. A vacancy notice advertisement No.01/2014 has been issued by DSSSB.
The notification invites applications from eligible persons in 193
disciplines. The notification disclosed the number of vacancies proposed
to be filled up as also the horizontal and vertical distribution therein.
The grievance raised in the two writ petitions is to some posts notified
to be filled up where no reservation for the visually differentlyabled
persons has been provided for.
6. We take one example.
7. As per serial No.192, applications have been invited from eligible
candidates to fill up the posts of TGT (Computer Science) in the
Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The total number
of vacancies to be filled up are 2026, out of which 1025 are in the
unreserved category. 547 have to be filled up by OBCs, 303 by SC and 151
by ST candidates. The advertisement indicates that across the horizontal
reservation as aforesaid, applying vertical reservations 60 posts would
have to be filled up from amongst the differentlyabled persons but
limited to the physically differentlyabled persons and the hearing
differentlyabled persons, each category getting 30 and 30.
8. The notification issued under Section 32 identifying posts which could be filled up by the differentlyabled persons shows that even the visually
differentlyabled persons have been found fit to hold teaching posts in
schools pertaining to the discipline of computer science.
9. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents would urge that only
yesterday i.e. on May 07, 2014 a clarificatory letter has been issued
guiding that if teaching computer science for a particular purpose would
require a visual colour identification, such posts needs to be critically
looked into and then a conscious decision to be taken whether a visually
differentlyabled person should or should not be the beneficiary of the
10. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that once the
notification dated July 29, 2013 was issued, full effect thereto has to
be given without exception until and unless a particular department
exercised its right under the proviso to Section 33 of the Act which
reads as under:-
?Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type
of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification
subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such
notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this
11. We find that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 a
statutory authority called the Chief Commissioner for persons with
disabilities has been constituted. The functions of the said Chief
Commissioner are as per Section 58 of the Act and vide clause (c)
thereof, of the various functions of the Chief Commissioner for persons
with disabilities, is the power to take all steps to ensure that the
rights may available to persons with disabilities are given effect to.
Meaning thereby, those who are subject to the provisions of the Act are
to be made accountable for their acts and if it is found that an
organization is not implementing the provisions of the Act the said
organization being compelled to do so.
12. Pithily stated, this would mean that the Chief Commissioner of
persons with disabilities has the statutory power to ensure that such
posts which are identified for reservation concerning visually
differentlyabled persons are filled up from said class/category of
13. In the two writ petitions a challenge to the vacancy notification has
been raised with respect to seven category of posts advertised to be
filled up for which no reservation has been provided for the visually
14. In our opinion the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities
should look into the grievance raised in the writ petitions and issue
necessary directions. The reason is that a factual adjudication is
necessary. This would mean that the Chief Commissioner for persons with
disabilities would grant a hearing to the petitioners and the
representative of the User Department of the 7 posts. With reference to
the posts identified and notified to be filled up by way of reservation for the visually differentlyabled persons as per the notification dated
July 29, 2013, if he finds that a post is required to be reserved for the
visually differentlyabled persons, direction to be issued. The said
direction would be complied with by the User Department as well as by the
15. The two petitions are disposed of issuing the mandamus as above with
emphasis on the fact that the decision taken by the Chief Commissioner
for disabled persons would be implemented without demur by the User
16. The representative of the petitioners which would include their
lawyers as also the representatives of the seven User Departments are
directed to appear before the Chief Commissioner for persons with
disabilities in his office at 11:00 AM on May 12, 2014. Necessary
exercise shall be carried out by the Chief Commissioner for persons with
disabilities within 3 days reckoned from May 12, 2014. Necessary
orders/direction shall be issued by him latest by May 16, 2014.
17. Liberty is granted to the parties to move an application if any
impediment is found in the implementation of the mandamus issued.
18. Copy of this order be supplied dasti under signatures of the Court
Master today itself to learned counsel for the petitioners as also the
19. No costs.
CM No.3509/2014 in W.P.(C) No.1675/2014
Dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JAYANT NATH, J.
MAY 08, 2014
W.P.(C) Nos.1675/14 and 2848/14 Page 6 of 6