The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Commissioner for Handicap Welfare to protect the rights of persons with disabilities and the requirement for adherence to principles of natural justice in appointment disputes.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.:

1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the order of the Hon'ble learned Single Judge dated 25.6.2010 in Writ Petition Nos. 6244 of 2009 and 8139 of 2009 at the instance of the employee and the employer-Management respectively, which were preferred against the order passed by the learned Commissioner for Handicap Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune, dated 10.8.2009.

2. A position according to undisputed facts starting from advertisement dated 1.2.2008 issued by the Management, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Instructor (Tailoring) emerges as under:( a) The Management issued advertisement in news papers dated 1.2.2008 for appointment on the post of Instructor (Tailoring) from reserved category candidates, preferably a woman, in order to fill up backlog. (b) In response to said advertisement, several persons, including the appellant-petitioner in Writ Petition No.6244 of 2009 namely Smt. Bagul as a woman candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, applied. Even Respondent No. 4 applied for appointment pursuant to said advertisement. (c) The performance of the appearing candidates had been assessed by the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 4 was considered from open category and not selected. (d) Appellant-petitioner being a scheduled caste woman candidate, had been selected. (e) Accordingly, appointment order had been issued to appellant-petitioner on 23.6.2008, on probation for one academic year. Pursuant to said order, she had assumed charge on 24.6.2008. (f) Appellant-Petitioner was again issued appointment order for next academic year on probation. (g) In the meanwhile, it appears that on 10.7.2008, Respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint against the Management before the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, Pune, purporting the same to be pursuant to Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("Disabilities Act" for brevity). (h) The complaint against the Management was without reference to appointment of appellant and assumption of charge by her of said post. (i) In the complaint, allegations against the Management were that the orders issued by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer and Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, are not being complied with by misconstruing provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. (j) The reason given by Respondent No.4 for lodging complaint is that his representations are not being taken cognizance of by the Management and the relief sought has been about his appointment on the vacant post of Instructor (tailoring). (k) The Management had received notice from the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, seeking response to the complaint lodged by Respondent no.4. (l) The management appears to have explained in their response that :(i) One Smt. Suryawanshi was appointed on the post of Instructor (Tailoring) with effect from 1.4.1995. As her services were not satisfactory, she was suspended in November, 1997. (ii) In order not to cause inconvenience to students in their ongoing education, Respondent No.4 came to be appointed on adhoc basis till alternate regular appointment could be made. (iii) As the alternate arrangement could not be made by next academic year, Respondent No. 4 was once again appointed on adhoc basis. (iv) In the meantime, aforesaid Smt. Suryawanshi had objected to and challenged her suspension and termination, under a Writ Petition before the High Court. (v) In the appointment orders issued to Respondent No.4, reference to the pending litigation between said Smt. Suryawanshi and Management had been made, specifying that his appointment is subject to decision by the High Court in the writ petition. (vi) The Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, passed order on 10.8.2009 directing appointment of Respondent No.4 on the post of Instructor (tailoring) with Management. The other leg of facts can be summarised as under:( i) The concerned Social Welfare Officer had i