MANOJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the appointment of respondent no. 4 as the Chairman of the respondent no. 2/Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) with the consequent relief that petitioner be appointed as the Chairman of the respondent no. 2/RCI.

(2.) PETITIONER questions the appointment of respondent no. 4 as the Chairman of the respondent no. 2 by arguing two aspects. The first aspect which is argued is that as per Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RCI Act'), the respondent no.4 was to be enrolled as a professional on the Register to be maintained by the RCI/respondent no.2 and since respondent no.4 was not enrolled as a professional, she should not have been appointed as the Chairman of the respondent no. 2/RCI. The second argument is that respondent no.4 was over age, above 65 years, when she was appointed as Chairman, RCI, and therefore, the appointment of respondent no. 4 as the Chairman, RCI is illegal.

(3.) RELIANCE placed upon Section 13 of the RCI Act is misconceived because Section 13 of the RCI Act pertains not to the appointment of Chairman and members of the RCI but with respect to the Register to be maintained by the Rehabilitation Council of India of professionals who would be registered with the respondent no. 2 and accordingly would be able to derive appropriate benefits under the RCI Act as a professional existing on the Register. Section 13 of the RCI Act does not deal with the appointment of a Chairman or member of the RCI but the qualifications with respect to the appointment of Chairman and Members of Rehabilitation Council of India are dealt with essentially under Section 4 of the RCI Act and which reads as under :