JUDGMENT SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.: 1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the order of the Hon'ble learned Single Judge dated 25.6.2010 in Writ Petition Nos. 6244 of 2009 and 8139 of 2009 at the instance of the employee and the employer-Management respectively, which were preferred against the order passed by the learned Commissioner for Handicap Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune, dated 10.8.2009. 2. A position according to undisputed facts starting from advertisement dated 1.2.2008 issued by the Management, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Instructor (Tailoring) emerges as under:( a) The Management issued advertisement in news papers dated 1.2.2008 for appointment on the post of Instructor (Tailoring) from reserved category candidates, preferably a woman, in order to fill up backlog. (b) In response to said advertisement, several persons, including the appellant-petitioner in Writ Petition No.6244 of 2009 namely Smt. Bagul as a woman candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, applied. Even Respondent No. 4 applied for appointment pursuant to said advertisement. (c) The performance of the appearing candidates had been assessed by the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 4 was considered from open category and not selected. (d) Appellant-petitioner being a scheduled caste woman candidate, had been selected. (e) Accordingly, appointment order had been issued to appellant-petitioner on 23.6.2008, on probation for one academic year. Pursuant to said order, she had assumed charge on 24.6.2008. (f) Appellant-Petitioner was again issued appointment order for next academic year on probation. (g) In the meanwhile, it appears that on 10.7.2008, Respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint against the Management before the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, Pune, purporting the same to be pursuant to Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("Disabilities Act" for brevity). (h) The complaint against the Management was without reference to appointment of appellant and assumption of charge by her of said post. (i) In the complaint, allegations against the Management were that the orders issued by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer and Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, are not being complied with by misconstruing provisions of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. (j) The reason given by Respondent No.4 for lodging complaint is that his representations are not being taken cognizance of by the Management and the relief sought has been about his appointment on the vacant post of Instructor (tailoring). (j) The reason given by Respondent No.4 for lodging complaint is that his representations are not being taken cognizance of by the Management and the relief sought has been about his appointment on the vacant post of Instructor (tailoring). (k) The Management had received notice from the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, seeking response to the complaint lodged by Respondent no.4. (l) The management appears to have explained in their response that :(i) One Smt. Suryawanshi was appointed on the post of Instructor (Tailoring) with effect from 1.4.1995. As her services were not satisfactory, she was suspended in November, 1997. (ii) In order not to cause inconvenience to students in their ongoing education, Respondent No.4 came to be appointed on adhoc basis till alternate regular appointment could be made. (iii) As the alternate arrangement could not be made by next academic year, Respondent No. 4 was once again appointed on adhoc basis. (iv) In the meantime, aforesaid Smt. Suryawanshi had objected to and challenged her suspension and termination, under a Writ Petition before the High Court. (v) In the appointment orders issued to Respondent No.4, reference to the pending litigation between said Smt. Suryawanshi and Management had been made, specifying that his appointment is subject to decision by the High Court in the writ petition. (vi) The Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, passed order on 10.8.2009 directing appointment of Respondent No.4 on the post of Instructor (tailoring) with Management. The other leg of facts can be summarised as under:( i) The concerned Social Welfare Officer had in letter dated 18.6.1998 specifically referred to that temporary approval is being granted to appointment of Respondent No.4, with a view not to cause inconvenience to ongoing education of the students and that the decision of the High Court would be binding on the appointee. (ii) The Social Welfare Officer in the communication dated 27.1.1999 stated that the course undertaken by Respondent No. 4 is not certified and recognized under the Disabilities Act and, therefore, declined administrative approval to his appointment. (iii) In view of aforesaid, on 9.3.1999, the management had brought to an end services of Respondent No. 4. (iv) Respondent No.4 approached Divisional Social Welfare Officer, making a grievance against cessation of his employment under a purported appeal. (iii) In view of aforesaid, on 9.3.1999, the management had brought to an end services of Respondent No. 4. (iv) Respondent No.4 approached Divisional Social Welfare Officer, making a grievance against cessation of his employment under a purported appeal. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer disposed of proceedings on 30.6.1999 referring to that the post had been cancelled and, therefore, decision on appeal would be redundant, stating that on revival of post, candidature of Respondent No.4 may be considered on merits. (v) In the meanwhile, the Writ Petition filed by Smt. Suryawanshi was disposed of by High Court in view of alternate remedy of appeal before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer available to her. (vi) Appeal filed by Smt. Suryawanshi was allowed on 20.12.1999. (vii) Against said order, Management preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare. The Commissioner found that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. (viii) In effect, the order of the District Social Welfare Officer held the field. Yet, Smt. Suraywanshi appears not to have been reinstated. (ix) As order passed by Divisional Social Welfare Officer was not being complied with, Smt. Suryawanshi preferred Writ Petition before the High Court, being Writ Petition No. 1399 of 2002. The High Court under its order dated 7.8.2002 had allowed the same, directing the Management to allow Smt. Suryawanshi to resume duties and costs were imposed on the management. (x) The Management had received a communications from the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, to fill up backlog in the employment in the institution and to make a report in respect of the same. The Management was admonished of stoppage of salary grants, if instructions were not complied with. It appears that in the inspection dated 19.6.2003, it had been noted that one post after three was to be filled in from reserved category in respect of concerned posts, including that of the Instructor (tailoring). The Management had also received a communication from the Zilla Parishad, directing that the posts falling vacant shall not be directly filled in as those are to be filled in only as per the directions given by Zilla Parishad contained in the same. (xi) On 30.6.2006, Smt. Suryawanshi retired on superannuation. It appears, sometime in the last week of May 2006, Respondent No. 4 had requested the Management to consider his case for appointment to the post falling vacant on retirement of Smt. Suryawanshi. (xi) On 30.6.2006, Smt. Suryawanshi retired on superannuation. It appears, sometime in the last week of May 2006, Respondent No. 4 had requested the Management to consider his case for appointment to the post falling vacant on retirement of Smt. Suryawanshi. (xii) However, it appears that the matter had not been followed up by Respondent No.4, thereafter. 3. Under letter dated 20.8.2009, the Social Welfare Officer, Zilla Parishad, had directed the Management to comply with the order dated 10.8.2009 of the Commissioner, Handicap Persons-Competent Authority. 4. Pursuant to said directions, under an order dated 1.9.2009, appellant's services came to be terminated and simultaneously appointment order was issued in favour of Respondent No.4. 5. Aforesaid order resulted in two Writ Petitions being filed before this Court. Writ Petition No. 6244 of 2009 was at the instance of present appellant Smt. Vaishali Bagul and Writ Petition No. 8139 of 2009 was filed by the Management. Both the petitions were dismissed under the impugned judgment and order dated 25.6.2010. 6. It is considered that the Commissioner had passed an order pursuant to powers conferred under Sections 62 and 63 of said enactment and sought implementation of Government Resolution dated 10.11.2004 issued by the General Administration Department (GAD). Order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer was before selection and appointment of appellant Smt. Bagul petitioner. Neither the selection nor appointment of petitioner Smt. Bagul was touched in the order passed by Commissioner, Handicaps Welfare. Even if the order can be said to have dealt with the appointment of petitioner Smt. Bagul, as the order has been passed by the Commissioner having jurisdiction, no fault can be found with the same on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not followed. Observance of principles of natural justice and adherence to the same would be called for only in case where persons are deprived of their right to the post or where selection and appointment to a post is set aside. It has been considered that the petitioner Smt. Bagul had no right to the post. Observance of principles of natural justice and adherence to the same would be called for only in case where persons are deprived of their right to the post or where selection and appointment to a post is set aside. It has been considered that the petitioner Smt. Bagul had no right to the post. It appears to have been considered that, there were three posts available with the management and as such, one post ought to have been reserved to implement the provisions of said Disabilities Act; Respondent No. 4 was earlier appointed on said post; to safeguard his rights and facilities in terms of the order dated 30.6.1999 of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, a direction was issued to appoint him; these findings are not challenged in any of the writ petitions; since the findings of fact were not challenged, the order which was impugned in the writ petitions cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or beyond the powers conferred by Sections 62 and 63 of the Disabilities Act. 7. Upon perusal of the grounds referred to in Writ Petition No.6244 of 2009 and tenor and substance of the writ petition, it is suffice to point out that the order was a subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Ground Nos. I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX do indicate that the findings have, in effect, been challenged in so many words, albeit may not be specifically referring to the provisions. In writ jurisdiction, stricter compliance may not be required. 8. It has also been considered that, it is the management which is at fault and the situation is the result of the game played by the management, referring to the observations of this court in the decision rendered in Writ Petition No.1399 of 2003, regarding conduct of the management. 9. It was considered, provisions under Sections 62 and 63 of the Disabilities Act reveal that it is the duty of the Commissioner for Handicap Welfare to look into the complaints in respect of the matters of deprivation of rights of the persons with disabilities and appears to have considered that the power is conferred upon the Commissioner to take all steps required for protection of rights and facilities made available to the persons with disabilities. 10. 10. Perusal of the judgment, rendered in writ petitions, indicates, it has been considered that concatenation of events suggests manipulation with a view to defeat right of Respondent No.4. 11. There is no di spute that Respondent No. 4 comes from open category. It also cannot be disputed that he had been working under and by way of stop gap arrangement and on temporary basis in order to avoid inconvenience to the students since one Smt. Suryawanshri was litigating against the Management and seeking appointment to said post. Appointment of Respondent no. 4 had been approved on temporary basis. Appeal by Respondent No. 4 was disposed of, directing Management to consider him on merits. Thereafter, the Management was being communicated by authorities about backlog of reserved category candidates and to clear the same. 12. Thereafter, advertisement in February, 2008 was issued for appointment on the post of Instructor (tailoring) which, according to the Management, is as per the roster and with a view to fill up the backlog, giving preference to the woman candidate. This advertisement had never been a subject matter of challenge in any of the litigations. It is relevant to note that Respondent No. 4 had participated in the selection process pursuant to said advertisement without challenge to the advertisement. 13. Though it had been observed in the order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer on the application dated 7.4.1999 of Respondent No.4 that as and when the post would be revived, claim of Respondent No. 4 for the same be considered on merits, Respondent No.4 had not sought implementation of said order nor had questioned the legality and validity of appointment of Smt. Suryawanshi on reinstatement. Respondent No. 4 even had requested the Management around retirement/superannuation of Smt. Suraywanshi for considering him for appointment to said post, but the request was not heeded. This inaction or failure on Management's part had never been taken exception to by Respondent No. 4. As a matter of fact, subsequently, he had tried to participate in the process of selection undertaken pursuant to the advertisement. 14. Respondent No.4 purportedly lodged a complaint in July, 2008 which surely is after assumption of charge of the post by petitioner appellant Smt. Bagul. 15. Despite aforesaid, the complaint dated 10.7.2008 of Respondent No.4, was without making reference to the advertisement and appointment of petitioner Smt. Bagul. 16. 14. Respondent No.4 purportedly lodged a complaint in July, 2008 which surely is after assumption of charge of the post by petitioner appellant Smt. Bagul. 15. Despite aforesaid, the complaint dated 10.7.2008 of Respondent No.4, was without making reference to the advertisement and appointment of petitioner Smt. Bagul. 16. Respondent No. 4 had lodged a complaint on 16.6.2008 to the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune:( a) without making petitioner appellant Smt. Vaishali a party to said complaint. (b) without making reference to petitioner Smt. Vaishali in said complaint. (c) without disclosing that the petitioner appellant Smt. Vaishali was appointed to said post and assumed charge on 24.6.2008. (d) evading reference to that, complainant Respondent No. 4 attempted to participate in selection process. 17. The Management in its reply had taken a stand as under: (a) advertisement was issued to fill up backlog in reserved category. (b) to prefer a woman candidate. (c) Respondent No. 4 participated in the process of selection. (d) reservation backlog had been considered according to roster and due procedure had been followed in issuing advertisement and making appointments pursuant thereto. (e) appointment had already been made to the post and the same is occupied by selected candidate. 18. The competent authority Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, despite aforesaid, observed that the management had misled, for it appears to have considered that there has been a submission about the post being vacant. 19. It is queer as to how the Commissioner has observed that since appellant-petitioner Vaishali had occupied the post on appointment and, therefore, the argument on behalf of the management about the post being vacant is misleading, especially in the background of the submissions of the Management which have been referred to by the Commissioner himself in his order, wherein it appears to have been stated on behalf of the management that selected candidate had already been appointed and she had assumed charge of the post. These observations by the Commissioner do not appear to adhere to the facts. The Commissioner held that the Management faltered in following the letter dated 10.11.2004 of the GAD and, therefore, in purported exercise of powers under Sections 62 and 63 of Disabilities Act, passed an order commanding the Management to appoint Respondent No. 4 on said post, dehors the observations of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer in his order dated 30.6.1999. 20. The Commissioner held that the Management faltered in following the letter dated 10.11.2004 of the GAD and, therefore, in purported exercise of powers under Sections 62 and 63 of Disabilities Act, passed an order commanding the Management to appoint Respondent No. 4 on said post, dehors the observations of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer in his order dated 30.6.1999. 20. The position thus appears that Respondent No. 4 makes a claims, as a matter of right, to have appointment to the post on which petitioner-appellant Smt. Bagul was already appointed. He kept quiet all along despite order dated 30.6.1999 of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. He did not stake his claim to the post upon reinstatement of Smt. Suryawanshi. Not only this, he kept quiet thereafter till superannuation of Smt. Suryawanshi, and even thereafter till the completion of selection process and assumption of charge by petitioner Smt. Bagul. 21. The order dated 30.6.1999 of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer clearly shows that the candidature of Respondent No. 4 is to be considered on merits, implicit in which is that he should be duly qualified and that there should be contest on merits. 22. The order dated 30.6.1999 impugned in Writ Petition, plays a predominant role. It would be pertinent to quote said order which reads as under:" mijksDr vfiy vtkZoj dk;Zokgh lq: vlrkauk ek- lapkyd lekt dY;k.k egkjk"Vz jkT; iq.ks ;kauh izsj.kk VªLV P;k viax dk;Z'kkGsl viax dk;nk lekula/kh gDdkps laj{k.k iq.kZ lgHkkx 1995 varxZr vuqKkIrh nsrkauk f'ko.k dyk funs'kd gs in jnn dsys vkgs R;keqGs Jh ?kkVs vkj th ;kauh dsysY;k vfiy vtkZoj fu.kZ; ns.ks foQy gksbZy Eg.kqu R;kapk vfiy vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr vkgs- Hkfo";kr lnj laLFksP;k viax dk;Z'kkGSr f'ko.kdyk funZ'kd in ek lapkyd lekt dY;k.k ;kauh eatwj dsY;kl lnj inkoj fuan'kdkph fu;qDrh djrkauk Jh ?kkVs vkt th ;kaph fu;aekuqlkj vtZ dsY;kl R;kaP;k vtkZpkfopkj xq.koRrsP;k vk/kkjs dj.;kps gh funZs'k ns.;kr nsr vkgsrgs vkns'k fn- 30&6&1999 ;k rkjksl fuxZfer dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr- " The intent and purport of the order quoted above does not appear to create absolute right in Respondent No.4. 23. Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 Act, read as under: " 61. 23. Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 Act, read as under: " 61. Powers of the Commissioner :- The Commissioner within the State shall, (a) co-ordinate with the departments of the State Government for the programme and schemes for the benefit of persons with disabilities; (b) monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government. (c) take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities; (d) submit reports to the State Government on the implementation of the Act at such intervals as the Government may prescribe and forward a copy thereof the Chief Commissioner. 62. Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities ,- Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 61, the Commissioner may of his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints with respect to matters relating to- (a) deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities; (b) non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the appropriate Government and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities., and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities." 63. Authorities and officers to have certain powers of Civil Court.-(1) The Chief Commissioner and the Commissioners shall, for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office. (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; and (e) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents. (2) Every proceeding before the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners shall be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the Chief Commissioner, the Commissioner, the competent authority, shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). " 24. " 24. Aforesaid provisions of the Disabilities Act refer to taking up the matter/complaint with the appropriate government by the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare. The provisions of the Disabilities Act as are quoted do not appear to confer power to issue directions on the Commissioner i.e. competent authority. His role is to take up the matter with appropriate authority. Thus, the direction issued under order dated 10.8.2009 exceeds the functions under the provisions of sections 61 and 62 of the Disabilities Act. 25. If it is to be considered that the post in which Smt. Suryawanshi was working, was lying vacant, the question that will have to be addressed to is as to what Respondent No. 4 did all through out till 2008 and while Smt. Suryawanshi was under employment and for a long period thereafter. He had kept silence for over 9 years. His action is belated and suffers laches. 26. It cannot be gainsaid that it was only after appointment of appellant-petitioner Smt. Bagul, Respondent No. 4 had lodged a complaint with the competent authority, while her initial appointment in usual course refers to it as temporary, and may have a right to be considered for permanent appointment. 27. In the present case, Respondent No.4 had avoided to make in his complaint, reference to appointment of appellant Smt. Bagul and to the selection process through which she was appointed, in which an attempt had been made by him to participate. So, it clearly emerges that his intention had been to bypass the rights of Smt. Bagul, keeping the authorities in dark about the same. He thus does not appear to have approached the competent authority with clean hands. Moreover, in the present case, whichever rights to appointment of Smt. Bagul appear to have been smothered in breach of noble principles of natural justice. It was Smt. Bagul who was to be affected by the impugned order passed by the competent authority and in such a case, opportunity of hearing to her was a sinequanon. For said purpose, considerations and principles laid down in judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 , would be relevant. 28. For said purpose, considerations and principles laid down in judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 , would be relevant. 28. It ought to be considered that the advertisement had been issued to fill up a permanent vacancy and further that the communications depict that there had been a backlog of the reserved category candidates and thus all along since 2003 onwards, communications in this respect were issued. The position that there subsisted backlog while the advertisement had been issued, has not been disputed. The appellant-petitioner Smt. Bagul belongs to backward class category is also not in dispute. That the procedure followed in recruitment to the post has been to fill up a permanent post. Thus, an appointment pursuant to the advertisement cannot be said to have not created any kind of right in favour of the appellant-petitioner Smt. Bagul. It is, in fact, the appellant Smt. Bagul who was the victim of the order of the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, purportedly passed under Section 62 of the Disabilities Act. Termination of Smt. Bagul is the direct result of the said order passed by the Commissioner, Handicap Welfare. Thus, one who is going to be victim of the said order, has all the rights which are absolute, natural and fundamental in nature to place his/her case for justice before an authority whose order would affect the person concerned. 29. It has been settled that while quasijudicial authority is performing its functions, the same ordains observance of principles of natural justice in its true spirit. In present case, Respondent No. 4 knew that and should be aware of that the order that was likely to be passed, if it be in his favour, in all certainty was to result into appellant-petitioner Smt. Bagul being a casualty. Even ordinarily, it is but incumbent to approach the authority with clean hands and not to play hide and seek. It has to be appreciated that the order dated 30.6.1999 by District Social Welfare Officer did not direct appointment of Respondent No. 4 and had, in fact, particularly stated that Respondent No.4's claim will have to be considered on merits. 30. It has to be appreciated that the order dated 30.6.1999 by District Social Welfare Officer did not direct appointment of Respondent No. 4 and had, in fact, particularly stated that Respondent No.4's claim will have to be considered on merits. 30. The position thus emerges that he had taken a chance before the competent authority after a long lapse and after not having been selected in the selection process evading responsibility to implead Smt. Bagul as a party to his complaint, with a view to obtain order behind her back, keeping the competent authority in dark. Factual position shows, right of Respondent No. 4 was not recognized in 1999 as absolute right by holding his termination illegal. 31. We, therefore, consider that on the whole, appellant-petitioner Smt. Bagul had been deprived of whatever right she had, behind her back without letting her an opportunity under a surreptitious action of Respondent No.4 and hence, same is unsustainable. 32. For all aforesaid reasons, we allow both the Letters Patent Appeals and set aside the order dated 25.6.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 6244 of 2009 and 8139 of 2009, as also the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner, Handicap Welfare. 33. In view of disposal of Letters Patent Appeals, Civil Application No. 11209 of 2010 for stay does not survive. The same stands disposed of, accordingly.