Quota for Person with disabilities jobs, SC seeks DoPT’s reply

Quota for Person with disabilities jobs, SC seeks DoPT’s reply

The Supreme Court has solicited Centre’s response regarding provision of three per cent quota in jobs to persons with disabilities within four weeks to a fresh plea of an NGO seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for not complying with an earlier order mandating the same. A division bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Arun Mishra listed the matter to be heard on February 16. The alleged contemnor Sanjay Kothari(Secretary of the Department of Personal and Training (DoPT) has been asked to file reply within four weeks.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for DoPT, challenged the plea saying, "there is no contempt and I can show it from records right now. In any case, it will file the reply."  Earlier, the court via order dated 8th October, 2013, while issuing notice to the Centre, had exempted the DoPT Secretary from personal appearance "for the present".The bench was hearing the plea of the NGO which contended that DoPT had issued an Office Memorandum seeking 3 per cent quota to persons with disabilities. Read Live Law story here.

It also accused DoPT of not taking steps for filling up vacancies, to be calculated against the reservation for persons with disabilities, adopting the manner of computation in terms of court's directions within a period of three months.The NGO has also sought direction to the DoPT to ensure "strict and timely compliance" of court's earlier order to restore a committee for undertaking a centralized special recruitment drive for doing away with the backlog reserved vacancies for these persons. The NGO went on to claim that other clauses, which were also to be amended to comply with the court's directions, have not been changed, since most of the clauses relate to quantum of reservation and maintenance of roster. Senior advocate SK Rungta, appearing in person for his NGO National Federation of the Blind, alleged Secretary of DoPT, has committed contempt by not amending the Centre's office memorandum (OM) as per the earlier direction of the apex court “intentionally and deliberately.“