FRIDGE HOME Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HERE is a meritorious disabled person (respondent No. 1 herein) suffering from the problem of progressive low vision (Retenitis Pigmentosa ). He being unaware of his disability opted to compete with general category candidates and topped the list of successful candidates in the examination held by the Delhi subordinate Staff Selection Board (in short 'dsssb') for recruitment to the post of TGT (Language Teacher) in 1999. He was appointed to the post of TGT (Hindi)in Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi on temporary and provisional basis subject to his being declared medically fit by the competent authority and verification of his character antecedents within two months of his said provisional appointment. Respondent No. 1 appeared before the medical Board on 03. 11. 1999 and was declared medically unfit as at the time of his medical examination he was found to be suffering from Retenitis Pigmentosa (eye problem ). His services were terminated w. e. f. 15. 12. 2000 as he was found medically unfit by the Medical Board. Respondent No. 1 made several representations to the concerned authorities against his termination and on his representations, the matter was referred by the Director of Education for re-examination of respondent No. 1 by another Medical Board of LNJP Hospital. He appeared before the Medical Board of LNJP Hospital on 23. 01. 2001 but there also he was declared medically unfit found suffering from the same eye problem as detected by the earlier Medical Board. He, thereafter, filed a complaint under section 59 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'act') before the Chief Commissioner, Disabilities. The Chief Commissioner after hearing both the parties on the complaint of respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order on 16. 10. 2002 and directed the Secretary (Education), Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi to get respondent No. 1 examined from a fresh Medical Board to be constituted within 30 days making it clear to the board that visual impairment is not a disqualification for the post of teacher. The Chief Commissioner, Disabilities vide impugned order also directed the secretary (Education) to revoke the termination of respondent No. 1 in case the medical Board declares him otherwise fit for the job of teacher and re-appoint him as TGT either against the general or the physically handicapped quota within 15 days from the receipt of report from the Medical Board. The petitioners being the concerned appointing authorities of respondent No. 1 feeling themselves aggrieved by the above referred order of the Chief Commissioner, Disabilities have filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 16. 10. 2002 passed by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in complaint case No. 711/2001.

(2.) THE impugned order dated 16. 10. 2002 passed by the Chief Commissioner, for Persons With Disabilities was stayed by this Court vide order passed on 13. 04. 2003 and the said interim order passed on that day is continuing till date.

(3.) IN response to notice of this writ petition, Mr. Khurana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 made a statement before the Court on 28. 01. 2004 that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit as only a legal issue arises in this case. As such there is no counter affidavit in the matter on behalf of respondent No. 1 who is the only contesting respondent in the case. Respondent No. 2 being the Chief Commissioner, disabilities is only a proforma respondent.