Uttarakhand Gramin Bank vs Union of India & others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner before this Court is a bank, namely, Uttarakhand Gramin Bank which had advertised 175 posts. Thereafter, these posts were reduced

to 131. Admittedly, there were four posts which were to be filled from amongst the physically challenged persons, out of which, one post was

reserved for visually impaired person. It is an admitted case that private respondent no. 3 had responded to the said advertisement and had applied

under the category of visually impaired person. It is again an admitted fact that no visually impaired person was appointed. Aggrieved, private

respondent no. 3, who is a visually impaired person, approached the Commissioner Disabilities, Uttarakhand. The Commissioner after considering the

case vide order dated 11.05.2017 directed for appointment of private respondent no.3. Private respondent no. 3 was in the waiting list at serial no.3 but

considering that he was the only person who was visually challenged and the seat had to be filled from amongst the visually challenged persons, the

Uttarakhand Gramin Bank had no option but to offer him an appointment on the post, if respondent no. 3 was otherwise qualified.

The powers of the Commissioner are given under Section 80 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which reads as under:-

“80. Functions of State Commissioner.-The State Commissioner shall-

(a) identify, suo motu or otherwise, provision of any law or policy, programme and procedures, which are in consistent with this Act, and recommend

necessary corrective steps;

(b) inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the

State Government is the appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action;

(c) review the safeguards provided by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force for the protection of rights of persons with

disabilities and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(d) review the factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of persons with disabilities and recommend appropriate remedial measures;

(e) undertake and promote research in the field of the rights of persons with disabilities;

(f) promote awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities and the safeguards available for their protection;

(g) monitor implementation of the provisions of this Act ad schemes, programmes meant for persons with disabilities;

(h) monitor utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government for the benefits of persons with disabilities; and

(i) perform such other functions as the State Government may assign.â€​

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the powers which have been given to the Commissioner are primarily recommendatory in

nature. Though it is a recommendation from a person which should be considered by the concerned authority but powers have not been given to the

Commissioner to direct any authority to give appointment to someone. The order to that extent is totally without jurisdiction. However, the impugned

order is only recommendatory in nature.

However, since it also appears from the record that one post was reserved for the visually impaired person and since the private respondent no. 3

was placed in waiting list at serial no. 3 and also considering the order of the Commissioner which is recommendatory in nature, the writ petition

stands disposed with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the case of the private respondent no. 3 and take a decision in the matter within

a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.