Section 45(2) in The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996
(2)In particular, the annual report referred to in sub-rule (1) shall contain information in respect of each of the following matters, namely:—(a) Names of officers, staff of the Board and a chart showing the organizational set-up;(b)The functions which the Chief Commissioner has been empowered under sections 58 and 59 of the Act and the highlights of the performance in this regard;(c)The main recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner;(d)Progress made in the implementation of the Act Statewise;(e)Any other matter deemed appropriate for inclusion by the Chief Commissioner or specified by the Central Government from time to time.[On 1st August, a bench at the Supreme Court comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath in Ajay Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2022 set aside the Allahabad High Court’s 2019 order which had found the Uttar Pradesh government’s 1999 order disqualifying persons with locomotor disability from applying for the posts of sweepers as unconstitutional. According to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, “locomotor disability” means the disability of the bones, joints or muscles, leading to substantial restriction of the movement of the limbs, or any form of cerebral palsy. Despite the Medical Council of India informing the Delhi High Court that persons with 80 per cent locomotor disability can apply for postgraduate medical courses, the Supreme Court bench, on Monday, did not find anything wrong with the 1999 policy, being followed by the Uttar Pradesh government, which made persons with locomotor disability ineligible for certain jobs under the state. The court held that the impugned GO could not be set aside in the exercise of the power of judicial review based on a cursory glance. Additionally, the identification of the posts which can be filled up by candidates suffering from disabilities is the responsibility and power of the appropriate government under section 32, and once such exercise has been carried out, the government, in terms of section 33, shall reserve one per cent each for the visual disability, hearing impairment and locomotor disability. Such power of the government cannot be interfered with unless the reservation is arbitrary, irrational or against the objectives sought to be achieved, and on judicially recognized principles, the bench concluded. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order of the high court, stating that it was not sustained in law. The court also held that since the posts of Safai-Karmis are not identified to be filled up from amongst the candidates having a locomotor disability, the appellants could not be appointed against such category of posts, even though they had appeared for cycling test and interview. Thus, the bench found that the appellants were not eligible for the appointment against such posts in terms of the advertisement, and disposed of their appeals. (https:indiankanoon.org/doc/191165120/, https://www.moneylife.in/article/sc-sets-aside-high-court-order-giving-relief-to-persons-with-locomotor-disability/67949.html)]
