1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5635/2007 Sohan Singh Gehlot Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 22.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. C.S. Bissa, for the petitioner. Mr. N.M. Lodha, Addl. Advocate General. Mr. Tarun Joshi, for the respondent-Commission. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.10.2006, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Primary Education). In the advertisement there is a condition NO.2 which reads as under:- The petitioner's contention is that the seats have been reserved for the physically handicapped persons to the extent of 3% and for that 3% reservation should have been made in addition to the reservation made for the SC/ST and OBC, whereas the non-petitioners have adjusted the physically handicapped persons' vacancies in the respective quotas reserved for the SC/ST and OBC. Reply has been filed on behalf of the RPSC. The respondents submitted that by advertisement dated 30.10.2006 applications were 2 invited for the post of Teacher Gr.III. In all, 10268 posts were advertised for primary teacher and out of these 10268 posts, 3% i.e. 308 posts were reserved for physically handicapped persons, 154 posts were meant for persons having low vision disability and remaining 154 posts were reserved for the persons with locomotor/cerebral palsy disability. The respondents also gave details of the marks secured by petitioner in vertical category. According to the learned counsel for the RPSC, in the advertisement itself it is very clearly mentioned that the physically handicapped candidates will be adjusted against the quota of respective reserved category of SC/ST/OBC and this condition was strictly followed. It is clear from the condition mentioned above that the advertisement was issued with clear mentioning that the reservation will be 3% and it will be adjusted according to the reserved category only. This condition No.2 referred above is not under challenge. In view of the above reasons, the respondents gave appointment according to the condition which is mentioned in the advertisement dated 30.10.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that the petitioner wants to challenge the condition No.2 referred above. 3 I do not find any reason to grant such permission to the petitioner. When the petitioner himself applied for the selection in the category of physically handicapped persons by accepting the condition No.2 referred above and when they failed in securing the appointment, then he is challenging such appointment and the condition. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '