DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COOPERATIVE TRAINING, CHANDIGARH Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Director General of the National Council for Cooperative Training, New Delhi, an autonomous body under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, and the Director of the Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh, the petitioners in this writ petition, assail the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi. Thereby, the Chief Commissioner required the Deputy Director (Personnel) of the National Council for Cooperative Training to reconsider the decision with regard to termination of the 2nd respondent herein from service, so as to ensure that the legitimate rights of a disabled person were not infringed. The Chief Commissioner accordingly disposed of Case No. 85/1011/2013/R3/42 filed by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) Independently, the 2nd respondent filed COCP-2146-2015 alleging disobedience to the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Chief Commissioner and seeking exercise of contempt jurisdiction by this Court under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(3.) Facts, to the extent relevant, are as follows: The Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh, issued Advertisement dated 26.05.2010 seeking to undertake recruitment to various posts. One such post was that of Stenographer (English). This post was reserved for physically handicapped category and was stated to be of permanent nature. The qualification prescribed therefor was Graduation with shorthand speed of 80 words per minute and typing speed of 40 words per minute, in English. The advertisement made it clear that the initial appointment would be on contract for two years on consolidated salary and that the appointee would be placed later in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 Grade pay Rs.2400/-. The 2nd respondent was one of the candidates who aspired for this post. However, out of the 12 candidates who applied, only 6 appeared for the Stenography English test but all 6 of them, including the petitioner, failed.