1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R 1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3369/2003 (Hanuman Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) 2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4453/2003 (Arun Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) Date of Order : : 26/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Vinod Choudhary, for the petitioner(s). Mr.Sidharth joshi, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are heard and decided together. By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek to declare the Schedule I and II appended with the Rajasthan Employment of Disabled Persons Rules, 2000 ultra vires and a direction restraining the respondents from making any bifurcation among the handicapped mentioned therein. The 2 petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to consider their candiature for the purpose of appointment on the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subjects 'Sanskrit' and 'Geography' respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material available on record. It appears that respondent-RPSC advertised the posts of Lecturer (School Education) for various subjects. The petitioners applied for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subjects 'Sanskrit' and 'Geography' respectively for which, by advetisment, the posts were advertised for OL/BL Category of disabled persons. The expression 'OL' category means the person having both the legs effected but not arms and 'BL' category means that one leg effected (left or right). According to reply filed by the respondent-RPSC, neither the petitioners fall under the category of OL nor BL, therefore they were not entitled to the benefit of physcially handicapped persons who fall under the category and as such, their candidatures were considered in the general category candidates. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the posts were advertised for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in the year 2002 and same have already been filled up by the eligible candidates. The case of the petitioners are that they are having 3 disability in their hands and therefore, do not fall in the BL/OL category and the posts were reserved for the category of physically handicapped persons (BL and OL). Since the posts have already been filled up and the candidatures of petitioners were rejected, therefore, in my view, the petitioners are not entitlted for any relief even otherwise the action of the respondents cannot be said to be erroneous. So far as Schedule I and II appended with the Rules of 2000 is concerned, there is no arbitrariness and illegallity in the rules making bifurcation of the handicap category. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petitions and same are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK