Delhi High Court
Nagbhushan Reddy vs Ali Yavar Jung N Ational Institute ... on 9 July, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
4. LPA 105/2009
NAGBHUSHAN REDDY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv.
versus
ALI YAVAR JUNG N ATIONAL INSTITUTE
FOR THE HEARING HANDICAPPTED
MUMBAI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Gahlawat, Adv. for R-1
Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Adv. for R-2/Indraj
Ms. Anuja Saxena, Adv. for R-3/RCI
5. LPA 135/2009
ALI YAVAR JUNG NATIONAL INSTITUTE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sumit Gahlawat, Adv.
versus
INDRAJ & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
ORDER
% 09.07.2009
These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the order of the
learned single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 196/2007 dated 18.12.2008. LPA
No. 105/2009 is filed by respondent No.3 in the writ petition, whereas LPA
No. 135/2009 is filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petition. Indraj,
respondent No.1 in LPA 135/09 and respondent No.2 in LPA 105/2009, is the
original writ petitioner who had challenged the appointment of respondent
No.3 in the writ petition (Appellant in LPA 105/2009) to the post of Ear Mould
Technician which has been made by respondent No.2 in the writ petition (Ali
Yavar Jung National Institute) ignoring the qualifications specified in the
advertisement issued by it.
2. Respondent No.2 in the writ petition is a national institute for hearing-
handicapped persons under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of India, New Delhi. The said respondent had issued an
advertisement notifying applications from eligible candidates for the post of
Ear Mould Technician in the pay scale of 4000-100-6000. The essential
qualification for the post in question contained in the advertisement was
senior secondary or any equivalent Examination Certificate and Diploma in
Communication Disorders/DHLS from NIHH or its RCs or any recognized
institution. The advertisement also required that the candidate should have
been registered on the roll of Rehabilitation Council of India (hereinafter
referred to as RCI). It appears that interviews were held on 27.10.2006 and
14 candidates had appeared in the interview. The Selection Committee,
upon a comparative evaluation based on practical and interview, selected
respondent No.3 (Nagabhushan S. Reddy) to the post of Ear Mould
Technician and placed the petitioner (Indraj) at Sl. No.2 in the select list.
3. The writ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 196/2007 challenging the
appointment of respondent No.3 as Ear Mould Technician on the ground that
the same has been made in violation of provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(3)
of Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act). Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act are reproduced as under:
"13(2) No person, other than the rehabilitation professional
who possesses a recognised rehabilitation qualification and
is enrolled on the Register,-
(a) shall hold office as rehabilitation professional or any
such office (by whatever designation called) in
Government or in any institution maintained by a local or
other authority;
(b) shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in
India;
(c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate any certificate
required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a
rehabilitation professional;
(d) shall be entitled to give any evidence in any Court as
an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 of any matter relating to the handicapped:
Provided that if a person possesses the recognised
rehabilitation professional qualifications on the date of
commencement of this Act, he shall be deemed to be an
enrolled rehabilitation professional for a period of six
months from the commencement, and if he has made an
application for enrolment of the Register within said period
of six months, till such application is disposed of.
(3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision
of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
4. On a plain reading of Section 13(2), it is clear that before a person is
appointed, a twin condition is required to be satisfied, i.e. (i) the candidate
must possess a recognized rehabilitation qualification, and (ii) the selected
candidate must be enrolled on the register of RCI on the date of his
selection. Contravention of any one of these conditions is made punishable
under Section 13(3) of the Act and there is no provision for relaxation of the
mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 13(2).
5. The learned single Judge upon hearing all parties recorded a finding
that the diploma course done by Respondent No.3 was not included in the
Schedule appended to the Act and thus, the respondent No.3 did not possess
the necessary qualification for appointment to the post of Ear Mould
Technician and secondly, respondent No.3 was not enrolled on the register of
RCI on the date of his selection or even on the date of his appointment.
Consequently, the appointment was quashed and the respondent No.2
institute was directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner (Indraj)
to the post of Ear Mould Technician as per his merit in the select list/wait list
and appoint him to the said post subject to his completing usual formalities
like medical fitness and verification of character antecedents etc. within a
period of three weeks.
6. Being aggrieved, these two appeals have been filed by respondent
No.2 Institute and respondent No.3 (Nagabhushan S. Reddy). A notice of
appeal was also issued to the RCI which filed a short affidavit in the Court. It
is seen from the affidavit of the RCI that the respondent No.3 (Nagabhushan
S. Reddy) possessed necessary qualification for appointment to the post of
Ear Mould Technician, but admittedly, he was not registered with the RCI at
the time of his selection or even at the time of his appointment. It seems
that he got himself registered much later after the writ petition was filed.
Under the circumstances, the learned single Judge was right in holding that
the appointment of Respondent No.3 was in violation of the mandatory
provisions of Section 13(2) of the RCI Act inasmuch as the condition relating
to the registration with the RCI was admittedly not satisfied by Respondent
No.3 at the relevant time. We, therefore, do not see any ground to interfere
with the order of the learned single Judge. Both the appeals are dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMOHAN, J
JULY 09, 2009
pk
