D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.712/2008 Jagdish Prasad Pathak Vs. State of Raj. & ors. Date of Order :: July 29, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Ashok Gaur for the appellant(s). *** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.9.2007 dismissing thereby the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant raised grievance with regard to his non appointment on the ground that the respondent no.3 who was appointed was at serial no.169 in the merit list whereas the appellant was at serial no.25. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the premise that the respondent no.3 was appointed against handicapped quota and no person lower in merit than the appellant has been appointed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even if the appointment was to be given to the respondent no.3 in handicapped quota, the respondents were required to show that on the basis of which roster point, the appointment was given to the respondent no.3. According to him, the 100 points roster system as prescribed by the respondents, reserves one post each at points no.34, 67 and 100 respectively for physically handicapped candidates. The candidate at serial no.169 would in no case be covered by any of these roster points. The respondents in reply to the writ petition clarified that as per the extent rules, the roster to is to be taken in the regular cycle and in fact, as and when appointments are made, the roster is not to be applied from the first point but is taken to be a continuing process. Thus it is erroneous to say that if 25 posts are filled then benefit of reservation cannot be given to even a single disabled person. -2- In the facts of the case, we find that out of 25 advertised posts if one post has been offered for appointment to a handicapped person because according to the respondents, roster system was applied by them in regular cycle, the appellant in any case cannot raise the grievance on the ground of discrimination because admittedly no candidate lower in merit than him in his category has been appointed. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-