ORDER
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order No. 121 dated 9.3.2007, contained in Annexure-10, issued by the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been deputed for driving a vehicle of one D.K. Srivastava, Special Secretary Rural Development Department.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is visually impaired/handicapped person and considering his said disability, he was assigned work of Routine Clerk since the year 1995. A short point has been raised in this writ petition.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a visually impaired/handicapped, he is not a fit person to drive a motor vehicle In view of the provisions 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 petitioner was assigned work of routine clerk, Suddenly by the impugned order dated 9.3.2007 (Annexure-10), the petitioner has been deputed for driving a vehicle of Shri D.K. Srivastava, Special Secretary, Rural Development Department.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said deputation is in direct conflict with the provision of Section 47 of the Act and the order passed is wholly arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner being visually impaired/handicapped and disabled cannot be deputed as driver as he is not fit to drive a motor vehicle in view of the provisions of Section 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the petitioner’s claim. The respondents. how-ever, have not disputed the petitioner’s disability, being visually impaired/handicapped. The only ground taken by the respondents is that for the purpose of permanent adjustment and conversion to the post of routine clerk, the approval of Finance and Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department is required. However, it has not been stated as to what step has been taken for such approval till date. There is also no categorical statement regarding the office order No. 121 dated 9.3.2007, whereby the petitioner, who has been discharging duties as routine clerk, has now has been deputed for driving the vehicle of said Shri D.K. Srivastava, Special Secretary, Rural Development Department.
6. In view of the above, I find no legal foundation-and rational behind issuing the order No. 121 dated 9.3.2007. The said order is bad in view of the provision of Section 47 of the Act as also that of Section 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 9.3.2007 (Annexure-10) is quashed, so far as it relates to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to take steps for approval of the concerned department for proper adjustment of the petitioner as Routine Clerk. If such approval is sought, the concerned respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.