1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7837/02 Suresh Kumar Gurjar vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 17/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kamal Chamariya for the petitioner. Shri S.N. Kumawat for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is handicapped. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Hindi in the handicapped category. Besides handicapped, he belongs to O.B.C. The petitioner was required to appear in the screening test. He however failed to clear the same. Dissatisfied therewith, he has filed this writ petition on the ground that disabled persons having handicap in both legs should be given full opportunity and there is only one vacancy reserved for both the categories, therefore, she should have been preferred. It was contended that the petitioner was wrongly declared fail in the screening test. The respondents be therefore directed to consider the case of the petitioner by treating as a separate 2 category of disabled who have infirmity in both their legs. This Court by its order dated 10.11.2002 required the respondents to show as to what was the total number of applicants who applied as against ten posts reserved for physically handicapped candidates and how many of them were declared passed in the screening test which was held for the purpose of shortlisting and ultimately how many physically handicapped persons were recommended for appointment. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the RPSC has produced today a statement for perusal of the Court which is taken on record. This statement shows that in the general category 75 applications of the handicapped were received and in OBC, 45 such applications were received whereas there were 12 applicants in S.C. and 5 in S.T. They were therefore required to be screened and ultimately 7 handicapped candidates in general category, 9 in OBC and 1 in SC were selected and recommended for appointment. In view of the aforesaid particulars 3 furnished by the respondents, it is but obvious that there was certainly a requirement of conducting screening test because large number of candidates applied for appointment as reserved for handicapped persons and within OBC itself nine handicapped candidates were recommended for appointment. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/