Valmiki J. Mehta JUDGMENT
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, including petitioner no. 1/Directorate of Education impugns the order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities dated 2.7.2003 by which the Commissioner of Disabilities has passed various directions against the present petitioners. Directions were passed against the present petitioners in view of a complaint filed by six complainants before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and which persons have been arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 6 in this petition.
2. The operative part of the impugned order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities reads as under:-
"8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations in the preceding paragraph, provisions of the instructions on holding DPCs, respondents are directed to workout the vacancies for each DPC year for promotion to the posts of PGT prior to 20.4.1998 and the number of reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities based on the 100 point reservation register. Thereafter, consider the complainants for promotion to the post of PGT, if they are eligible according to the then applicable recruitment rules/instructions against the reserved vacancies for persons with disabilities. Those found suitable/fit be promoted to the post of PGT from the date they would have been promoted had the year wise DPCs been convened. The respondents shall submit a compliance report to this Court within four months from the date of receipt of this Judgment & Order."
3. It is seen that the operative portion contained in para 8 of the impugned order which is reproduced above passes directions for implementation against the petitioners including of promotion to the respondent nos. 1 to 6. The issue is that whether at all the Chief Commissioner could have passed directions in terms of para 8 of the impugned order.
4. The issue in question is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin MANU/SC/0110/2010 : (2010) 4 SCC 368 and the Supreme Court in its judgment holds that the authorities acting under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, have no power like a Court to pass judgment including directions in the nature of injunction, etc. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (supra) are contained in paras 12-19 and the same read as under:-
"12. Under the Rules, an officer of the Bank, shall retire on completion of thirty years of service. The respondent was accordingly retired on completion of thirty years. He was not denied any retiral benefits. He was not entitled, as of right, to continue beyond thirty years of service. In fact, he did not want to continue in service, as his grievance was that he ought to have been permitted to retire under the exit policy scheme. The grievance of the respondent had apparently nothing to do with his being a person with a disability.
13. Prima facie, neither Section 47 nor any other provision of the Disabilities Act was attracted. But, the Chief Commissioner chose to issue a show cause notice on the complaint and also issued an ex parte direction not to give effect to the order of retirement. He overlooked and ignored the fact that the retirement from service was on completion of the prescribed period of service as per the service regulations, which was cle........