Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 27335
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH, J
R P S C AJMER – Appellant
Versus
MUKESH CHANDRA VYAS ANR – Respondent
CW / 17105 / 2012
Mr. Kapil Bardhar
The Commissioner under the Disabilities Act lacks jurisdiction to issue mandatory directions to the RPSC, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Sections 58, 59, 61, 62, and 63 - Jurisdiction of the Commissioner - The Commissioner lacks the authority to issue mandatory directions to the RPSC for reconstituting the Interview Board, as established by the Supreme Court in State of Patiala & Others Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (Paras 12-13).
(B) Civil Court Powers - The powers of the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners under the Disabilities Act do not extend to granting injunctions or interim directions, as clarified in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities, Rajasthan, directing the RPSC to reconstitute the Interview Board for the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction in issuing mandatory directions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Commissioner had the authority to direct the RPSC to reconstitute the Interview Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Commissioner does not possess the power to issue mandatory directions, reaffirming the limitations of authority under the Disabilities Act.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the order dated 03.05.2012 is set aside.
Order
03/01/2024
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities, Rajasthan dated 03.05.2012, whereby, the Commissioner has directed the RPSC for reconstitution of Interview Board for taking the interview of the respondent afresh.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner has no power to issue mandatory directions to the RPSC.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Patiala & Others Vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin reported in AIR 2010 SC
1542 wherein Para Nos.12 and 13 has held as under:-
“12. The functions of the Chief Commissioner are set out in Sections 58 and 59 of the Act. Section 58 provides that the Chief Commissioner shall have the following functions:-
(a) coordinate the work of the Commissioners;
(b) monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by the Central Government;
(c) take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities;
(d) submit reports to the Central Government on the implementation of the Act at such intervals as the Government may prescribe.
Section 59 provides that without prejudice to the provisions of Section 58, the Commissioner may of his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities, any matters relating to (a) deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities; and (b) non- implementation of laws, rules, bye- laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities. The Commissioners appointed by the State Governments also have similar powers under Section 61 and 62. Section 63 provides that the Chief Commissioner and the Commissioners shall, for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit, in regard to the following matters: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance for witnesses; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or officer; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; and (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. Rule 42 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Chief Commissioner.
13. It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the Chief Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under the Disabilities Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other interim directions. The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions (which include power to look into complaints), does not enable them to assume the other powers of a civil court which are not vested in them by the provisions of the Disabilities Act. In All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association vs. Union of India 1996 (6) SCC 606, this Court, dealing with Article 338 (8) of the Constitution of India (similar to section 63 of the Disabilities Act), observed as follows :
"It can be seen from a plain reading of clause (8) that the Commission has the power of the civil court for the purpose of conducting an investigation contemplated in sub-clause (a) and an inquiry into a complaint referred to i sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution. All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too f
