IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No.2864, 2919 & 3961 of 2009 Decided on: May 5, 2011. 1. CWP No.2864 of 2009. Mohammad Akram …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P & another …..Respondents. 2. CWP No.2919 of 2009 Jagarnath …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P & another …..Respondents. 3. CWP No.3961 of 2009 Gopal Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. Chief Secretary and another …..Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate (in all the petitions.) For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners are physically challenged persons. They are aggrieved since they are not given regular appointment. According to them, they are entitled to regular appointment against 3% seats reserved for the persons with disabilities under the provisions of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 2. A similar issue was considered by this Court in detail and the following directions have been issued : “There will be a direction to the Director, Animal Husbandry to see whether 3% quota of disabled persons has been met in the 2 category of regular beldars. In case there is deficiency in the 3% quota in the cadre strength of regular beldars, the persons recruited in these cases shall be adjusted against those regular vacancies, since the recruitment process is the same for daily wages beldars and regular beldars. We make it clear that it is open to the Animal Husbandry department to ear-mark separate quota of 3% as against the daily waged beldars as well, subject to fulfillment of regular beldars in the ear-marked quota of 3%. Needful adjustments in the case of petitioners in the light of this judgment shall be done by the Director, Animal Husbandry, within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners. Consequential benefits shall also be disbursed within another period of two months.” 3. In view of the directions, as above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second respondent to look into the matter, verify the factual position and do the needful in light of the above directions within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner (s) before the second respondent/competent authority. 4. In view of the final disposal of the writ petition, the pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice May 5, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/cs) Judge.