ORDER : The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) after due selection. He had reported for training on 11.09.2006. During the course of training, it is said that he attempted to commit suicide by cutting his left wrist on the third day of his reporting. He was admitted in the hospital and kept under guard. Subsequently, he was referred to Government Mental Hospital for assessment as to whether he was suffering from any psychiatric illness. He was found to be suffering from “acute distress disorder”. After he recovered, he was declared fit to join duty and was advised medication. However, taking into account the vigorous training, which the petitioner was to undergo, he was referred to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bhubaneswar on 26.11.2006 for psychiatric evaluation. The Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bhubaneswar in its letter dated 30.11.2006 opined as follows:- “Stress is inherited in CRPF job. He has to serve in adverse climatic conditions in extremist infected areas in life threatening situations. May not get leave at the time of requirements. Also may not get food timely at some times. His act of attempted suicide shows- he is having very poor stress tolerance. During stressful conditions such acts can not be ruled out. Hence, I am of the opinion that he is not likely to be an effective member of the Force”. 2. In view of opinion from Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bhubaneswar, the competent authority, considering that the petitioner could not become an effective member of the Force due to his very poor stress tolerance, terminated his services forthwith in exercise of power under Rule 5(1) of the Central Services (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 05.12.2006 in the present writ application. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order dated 05.12.2006 which was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna, which was also under challenge in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has acquired the disability during his probation, his services/ probation should not have been terminated on that ground keeping in view Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He has submitted that his services should not have been dispensed with in view of such provision. He has submitted that his services should not have been dispensed with in view of such provision. Referring to Section 2(i) of the Act, he contends that disability within the meaning of the said Act includes “mental illness”. 4. Mr. N. A. Shamsi, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has submitted, referring to statements made in the counter affidavit, that the petitioner had attempted to commit suicide in the very beginning of his training and it was found that he had very poor stress tolerance and, therefore, considering that he could not be an effective member of CRPF, the decision to terminate his services, in exercise of power under Rule 5(1) of Central Services (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965 was taken. He contends that there is no illegality in such order. He has also submitted that there is a notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 10.09.2002 exempting Central Para Military Forces including CRPF from the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. He contends, therefore, that provisions of the said Act will not apply to CRPF. 5. It would be apt to refer to some of the provisions of the said Act relevant for deciding the dispute in the present case. Section 2(i) defines the disability in following terms:- (i) “disability” means- (i) blindness; (ii) low vision’ (iii) leprosy-cured; (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii) mental illness; 6. Section 33 of the Act mandates reservation of posts for persons suffering from certain disabilities as mentioned in the section and it reads thus:- “33. Reservation of posts.-Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. Each shall be reserved for persons suffering from- (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability of cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section”. 7. Section 47 of the Act provides that there shall be no discrimination by any establishment with an employee who acquires “disability” during his service. 7. Section 47 of the Act provides that there shall be no discrimination by any establishment with an employee who acquires “disability” during his service. Section 47 reads thus:- “47. Non-discrimination in Government Employment- (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section”. 8. From a bare reading of section 2(i) of the Act, it is evident that mental illness is also a disability for the purpose of various provisions under the Act whereas Section 33 of the Act, provides for reservation of posts in every establishment for persons suffering from certain disabilities as mentioned thereunder, proviso to Section 33 empowers the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the provisions of “this section”, having regard to the work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification. A notification has admittedly been issued in exercise of power under such proviso to Section 33 of the Act. The notification to this effect dated 10.09.2002, a copy of which has been produced by learned Assistant Solicitor General, reads thus:- “ S.O. 994(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) the Central Government having regard to the type of work carried on hereby exempt all categories of posts of “combatant personnel” only of the Central Para Military Forces (CPMFs), namely, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Boarder Security Force (BSF), Into- Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Assam Rifles fro the provisions of the said section. ” 9. ” 9. Evidently, a separate notification would be required to be issued for exemption from application of Section 47 of the Act as per said proviso to Section 47 of the Act. The notification issued under section 33 dated 10.09.2002 is confined to the provisions as contained in Section 33 of the Act and no other provisions. No notification has been brought on record or produced by the respondents said to have been issued under section 47 of the Act. 10. In such view of the matter, in my opinion, the authorities were required to consider the petitioner’s case in terms of Section 47 of the Act. This is to be noted, as is evident from the counter affidavit itself, that the petitioner has acquired such mental illness/ disability in course of service. The authorities, therefore, are required to consider the petitioner’s case accordingly. 11. Section 47 of the Act contemplates a situation that if after acquiring disability an employee is not found suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same pay scale and service benefits. 12. I, accordingly, remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Addl. DIG Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Mokama Ghat to pass order afresh applying Section 47 of the Act. He will be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order. I find no hesitation in holding that provisions of Section 47 of the Act are mandatory and benefits granted by the said provision can be denied to the petitioner only if there is a notification under section 47 of the Act exempting the establishment from application of such provision. The decision must be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.