Decided on December 20,2007



- (1.) THE petitioner claims that he is a physically handicapped person and is entitled to the benefits of benevolent legislation i. e. Persons with disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'disability Act' ). His qualifications are MA (Physical Education) from Choudhary Charan Singh, Haryana agriculture University Sports College, Hissar. Section 33 of the Disability act provides for 3% reservation of posts in public employment for candidates suffering from disability mentioned in Section 2 (i) of the said Act. It is for this reason that when Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short 'dsssb') advertised posts for inviting applications for the post of various teachers, including four posts of Physical Education Teacher (PET) for physically handicapped persons in March 1999, the petitioner also applied for the said post in the aforesaid reserved category. He emerged successful in the said selection and was issued appointment letter dated 23. 12. 1999. The petitioner joined as PET at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, shakarpur, Delhi on 13. 1. 2000. On 23. 5. 2000, he was transferred to GBM school, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(2.) WHILE working in this school, the Deputy Director of Education (Admn. Branch), Govt. of NCT of Delhi (respondent No. 3 herein), issued him a show-cause notice dated 21. 12. 2000 stating therein that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed to the post of PET as a handicapped person and, therefore, as to why his services should not be terminated as it was detected that he was not possessing the educational qualifications required for the post. He submitted his reply dated 23. 12. 2000. However, no action on the said show-cause notice was taken. Instead, after a gap of 21/2 years, the petitioner was served with another memo dated 23. 6. 2003 calling upon him to submit his representation along with all the relevant documents in support of his claim that he was an eligible candidate and was rightly selected to the post. The petitioner responded vide reply dated 7. 7. 2003. After a lapse of four months, memo dated 10. 11. 2003 was issued to him giving him another opportunity to explain his position. The petitioner submitted yet another reply on 22. 11. 2003. After considering these explanations, the respondent vide orders dated 26. 4. 2004 terminated his services on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification prescribed for the post in question and the qualification possessed by him, i. e. Bachelors of Sports Humanities, cannot be equated with the qualifications prescribed for the post as per the recruitment rules. The respondents were also of the opinion that the petitioner was disabled to the extent of 65%, thus, rendering him incapacitated to impart training to the students. On this basis the respondents concluded that the petitioner was wrongly appointed and his appointment was against the notified recruitment rules as also Do PT instructions dated 28. 2. 1986 and 25. 11. 1986. These were the reasons which became cause of termination of the services of the petitioner.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunal Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi. However, his attempt in the said OA has turned out to be futile as the Tribunal had dismissed the said OA. Not satisfied the petitioner has assailed that judgment in the present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.