WP(C) 727/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. U.K. Das, lea rned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr . Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. The petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person, has filed this w rit petition praying for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Food and Ci vil Supplies on the basis of the quota prescribed for such candidates under Sect ion 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Righ ts and Full Participation) Act, 1995. There is further division of this 3% as fo llows :- 1% for hearing impaired, 1% for blindness, and 1% for Locomotor Disability. 3. In the instant case, the department with which we are concerned, wherein the reservation has been identified as applicable is only in respect of the Loc omotor disabled person. If only 1% is applied, the petitioner may not come withi n the zone of consideration. However, it is the case of the petitioner that appl ying the total percentage of reservation i.e. 3%, there should be more posts res erved for physically disabled persons and in that event, the petitioner will com e within the zone of consideration. 4. The very fact that there is further division of the 3% reservation as in dicated above, will go to show that each category of disabled persons is compart mentalized and is not flexible. The department in question having identified 1% reservation for disabled person (Locomotor Disability), for the particular post, the percentage of reservation will have to be identified on that basis and not applying the whole 3% reservation. After applying the 1% reservation for physica lly disabled person, if the petitioner does not come within the zone of consider ation, in my considered opinion, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. Accordingly, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner applying the entire 3% reservation, inasmuch as, the remaining 2% are divided as 1% each, in the category of blindness and hearing impaired. T he petitioner is orthopaedically handicapped person and thus cannot intrude upo n other two categories. 5. In view of the above and petitioner being not within the zone of conside ration, no direction can be issued for his appointment against the said quota. 6. Writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.