IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  W.P.(C) 1675/2014
  
  SCORE FOUNDATION and ANR. ..... Petitioners
  
  Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Sinha, Advocate with Ms.Sharika Surendran,
  Advocate
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  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
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 2848/2014
  
  ALL INDIA CONFEDERATION OF BLIND ..... Petitioner
  
  Represented by: Mr.Deepesh Aneja, Advocate
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  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
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   08.05.2014
  
  
  
  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
  persons.
  
  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
  reservation.
  
  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
  section.?
  
  
  
  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
  persons.
  
  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
  differentlyabled persons.
  
  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
  DSSSB.
  
  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
  Department.
  
  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
  respondents.
  
  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
  
  mamta
  
  W.P.(C) Nos.1675/14 and 2848/14 Page 6 of 6
  
  
  
  
  
  $ 2