The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities cannot issue mandatory directions for appointments under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as such authority exceeds the powers conferred by the Act.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4, whereby a direction was issued by the 1^st respondent to appoint the 2^nd respondent as peon in a permanent vacancy, within 30 days on receipt of a copy of the order.

2. The petitioner is an Urban Co-operative Bank coming under the regulatory regime of Banking Regulation Act and Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. The 2^nd respondent, who is a physically disabled person, was employed as a peon on a daily wage basis in the petitioner bank. Later, his service was terminated. Thereupon, Ext.P1 petition was filed by the 2^nd respondent before the 1^st respondent seeking a direction to the petitioner bank for reinstatement in service. The 1^st respondent called upon the petitioner for a hearing, and the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 written submission before the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent produced a letter issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) addressed to the petitioner to consider the 2^nd respondent in any vacancy arising in future on humanitarian grounds. Thereafter by Ext.P4 order the 1^st respondent directed the petitioner to appoint the 2^nd respondent as peon on regular basis in the service of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and in case the post of peon is absent in the petitioner bank, he shall be accommodated on supernumerary basis and the action taken report shall be filed as contemplated under Section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act, 2016'). The petitioner would submit that as part of the installation of the core-banking solution, compilation of the data of existing customers of the bank was required, for which Data Entry Operators were engaged on a daily wage basis. The 2^nd respondent made an application, and he was engaged as a Data Entry Operator on a daily wage basis. The entry of data of customers of the bank was completed in the year 2019, and the payment of daily wages to the tune of Rs.11,79,450/- was objected to in the audit. Thereupon, the Board of Directors of the bank, as per Ext.P8 resolution, decided to disengage the 10 daily rated employees from 31.08.2019. One of the daily wage employees, thus disengaged, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34670/2019 and this Court, as per Ext.P9 judgment, disposed of the writ petition relegating the petitioner therein to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act 1969 for redressal of her grievance. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P4 is vitiated by total lack of jurisdiction and the Urban Co-operative Bank will not come under the definition of 'appropriate Government' as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act, 2016 and reliance was placed on the judgment in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 232 (SC) in support of the said contention. Therefore, the petitioner sought interference on Ext.P4 order passed by the 1^st respondent.

3. The 2^nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that in Ext.P4 a direction was issued to the petitioner bank to submit an action taken report as contemplated under Section 81 of the Act, 2016 and going by Section 3 of the Act, 2016, no person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Going by Section 80 of the Act, 2016, which defines the functions of State Commissioner includes to identify, suo motu or otherwise, provision of any law or policy, programme and procedures, which are inconsistent with this Act, and recommend necessary corrective steps and also to enquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the State