Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The respondents in the Original Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in December, 1986. While undergoing training at the Recruits Training Centre-II, Avady, the petitioner sustained injury on his left leg on 4.4.1987. He was hospitalised and later discharged on 30.5.1987 with advise to take six weeks' rest. The Medical Officer in charge of the hospital gave the opinion that the petitioner cannot undertake active training for a minimum period of two years. Since he did not complete the basic training, it was found that he cannot be an active member of the Force and, therefore, his services were terminated on  24.9.1987 under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Ext.P1 is the said order. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation claiming that he may be reinstated in service or provided with alternative employment. To that petition, he was served with Ext.P3 reply stating that he cannot be reinstated in service. The petitioner again represented, which was replied by Ext.P4 stating that all the posts of Ministerial/Hospital cadres, including Group 'D' posts have been combatised and a person who has already been declared medically unfit cannot be employed. Later, the respondent-petitioner was served with Ext.P5 communication dated 15.11.1995 calling for his personal particulars in the proforma enclosed. The petitioner submitted the details, as is evident from Ext.P6. When no action was taken , he submitted Exts.P7 and P8 representations before the Directorate General, C.R.P.F. and the Government respectively. He was told by Ext.P9 that he was not entitled to get any service benefits. The petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No.9309 of 1999. This Court disposed of the said Original Petition directing the third respondent therein to consider his representation for accommodating him in some clerical post. His representation was rejected by Ext.P12 communication dated 23.6.1999.

4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The direction to give re-employment was issued relying on the decision in Kunal Singh's Case (supra). It was a decision rendered under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said Act came into force only on 7.2.1996. The respondent-petitioner was terminated from service on 24.9.1987. So, the Act was not in force at the time of his discharge. After the enforcement of the Act, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 47 exempting combatised personal of the C.R.P.F. from the operation of the said provision. So, the ground on which the learned Single Judge granted reliefs in the Original Petition is unsustainable. The decision of the Apex Court mentioned above has no application to the facts of this case.