CWP-T No. 2810 of 2008 9.11.2009 Present:- Mr. B.C.Negi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. P.P.Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been removed as Water Carrier vide order dated 30.8.2007 primarily on the ground that he was not entitled to any marks in the category of disabled candidate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Annexure A-6 dated 12.2.1999, the age should be around 40 years and disability should be preferably between 40% to 50% . I have gone through Annexure A-6. No doubt, as per Annexure A-6 so far age is concerned, the age should be around 40 years. There is nothing in Annexure A-6 that the disability should be preferably between 40% to 50%. The learned counsel for the petitioner faced with this situation has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to marks being unemployed and for that purpose, he has relied unemployment certificate Annexure A-10 dated 6.9.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that selection took place in July, 2005 and, therefore, unemployment certificate Annexure A-10 dated 6.9.2007 is of no help to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged Annexure A-6 being arbitrary on the point of percentage of disability. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disability in - 2 - between 40% and 50% is in consonance with Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and, therefore, the challenge to guidelines Annexure A-6 on the point of arbitrariness has not been made out. No other point was urged. The result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. November 9, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.