1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2913/2010 Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur .versus. Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Pune and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Cou rt's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.Z.Jibhkate, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.B.Lonare, AGP, for Respondent no.1. Shri A.S.Deshpande, Counsel for Respondent no.2 CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 31 st AUGUST, 2010 1] This writ petition challenges the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner and Tribunal for (Persons with Disabilities, Handicap Welfare), State of Maharashtra, Pune. By this order, the Petitioner University has been directed to complete the process of selection of Respondent no.2 to the post of Assistant Professor in Animal Husbandry. The Commissioner has recorded a finding that the University has failed to carry out the reservation of 3% of physically handicapped person in terms of provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995. If the said reservation had been made, then the respondent who is a person physically handicapped would have 2 got an opportunity to participate in the process of selection as a candidate belonging to said category. The Commissioner has further given direction to carry out the process of selection and if respondent no.2 is found to be eligible for selection and if he is selected for the post, the question of granting deemed date for appointment should also be taken into consideration. 2] Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was a ban on recruitment and no directions were issued by the Government to carry out the special drive for physically handicapped persons. At any rate, according to him, the Commissioner could not have fixed the time for compliance of the order. He further submits that the Commissioner could not have granted the deemed date to the respondent no.2 in case of his selection for the said post. 3] Section 62 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995, clearly empowers the Commissioner to see that the provisions of the Act are implemented. No riders are put on the powers of the Commissioner while enforcing the provisions of the Act. Hence, the plea 3 put forth by the petitioner that there was a ban on recruitment and the Government has not issued instructions for carrying out special drive, are of no avail. Similarly, the direction regarding grant of deemed date upon selection of Respondent no.2 to the post in question also cannot be considered to be without jurisdiction as the provisions of the Act were required to be implemented in the year 2007 itself , and the petitioner University has failed to implement the same. 4] Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though now ban is lifted, it is not possible to complete the process of selection within a period of 90 days. The petitioner is at liberty to carry out the process as expeditiously as possible and if any adverse action is taken by the Commissioner for not implementing the direction within a period of 90 days, it will be open for the petitioner to submit its explanation in respect of the same and to satisfy the concerned Authority. 5] In the result, there is no substance in this petition. The same is disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit