It is asserted by the petitioner that he is a disabled person and applied in 1994 to respondent No.1 for a job as helper against the disabled quota, but this job has been illegally denied. Petitioner earlier filed writ petition in this Court, in which respondent assured that petitioner will be duly accommodated but that assurance never materialised. Petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner against one of the posts reserved for disabled persons.
2. In the initial comments filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, position taken by them was that in lieu of non-employment of disabled person, the company has been making contribution as required under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 and therefore, the company cannot be said to have violated any provisions of law. In the additional comments filed by the respondents it is pleaded that at present there is no vacancy for disabled persons and as such the company is unable to accommodate the petitioner. The assertion that the law has fixed 2% quota for disabled persons, is denied and is stated that it is an executive order of the Prime Minister and 2% quota be fixed. It is claimed that total number of employees in the company is 7161. Out of which 79 disabled persons have already been employed in terms of section 10 of the said Ordinance.
3. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that quota of disabled persons has been enhanced to 2% by way of amendment in the law. However, he could not produce the amendment. It is actually the Prime Minister's directive that quota be enhanced to 2%.
Under section 10 of the Ordinance the requirement is that not less than 1% of the total number of persons shall be disabled persons, whose names have been registered with the Employment Exchange of the area. It is, therefore, not correct that the law has enhanced the quota to 2%.
4. In the face of the stand taken by the respondent-company that there is no vacancy against disabled quota, the onus to prove otherwise fell upon the petitioner. There is no material on record to disprove the assertion of the company. The petitioner, therefore, has to fail in this Court. However, that is not the end of the matter. Under the Ordinance, the machinery has been provided to see that law is duly implemented. It is for the National or the Provincial Council to examine such complaints and to investigate whether the company or the employer is duly complying with the provisions of the Ordinance or not. If so advised the petitioner may invoke such jurisdiction of the National or the Provincial Council.
5. This petition, in the circumstances, is disposed of with no order as to costs. This Court, however, expects that as disabled human being, the petitioner deserves full sympathetic treatment from respondents Nos.1 and 2. It is expected that treatment will not be denied to the petitioner.