IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3560 of 2007 Ranjit Kumar, SON OF LATE RANVIJAY SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- BASAWANPUR, P.O.- GAMHORI, P.S.- UPHARA, VIA- GOH, DISTT.- AURANGABAD, BIHAR ;---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 4. THE DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, CIVIL COURT, VAISHALI AT HAGIPUR. 5. THE JUDGE-IN-CHARGE NAZARAT CIVIL COURT, HAJIPUR. 6. SRI DEVI DYAL PRASAD, RETIRED DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HAJIPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING OF SANDYAL IN LANE, BUDH MARG PATNA-1. 7. SRI IQBAL HUSSAIN, S/O- NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING AS PEON (CLASS-IV), CIVIL COURT, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI :--RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. Md. Zubair Ansari, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.A.5. ====== 2. 16.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is physically challenged individual. He has filed this writ petition questioning the appointment order no. 26/05 dated 30.6.2005, Annexure-6 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereunder appointment has been made on Class-IV post in the Civil Court, Hajipur on the ground that while making such appointment no reservation was made for appointment of the physically challenged persons, as is required under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Appointment Order No. 26/05, Annexure-6 has been 2 issued pursuant to advertisement dated 29th August, 2003 published in Aaj newspaper, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-2. Clause (5) of the advertisement only provided for reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Tribes/Backward Class and Extremely Backward Class. From the advertisement itself it does not appear that any reservation was required to be given in favour of physically challenged person. Petitioner appeared in the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 29th August, 2003 and was aware that no reservation is made in favour of the physically challenged persons while making appointment on Class-IV post in the Civil Court at Hajipur. As petitioner was aware right from the date of advertisement that there is no reservation in favour of the physically challenged, he should have challenged the contents of the advertisement as violative of the provisions of the Act. Petitioner having not challenged the contents of the advertisement, in my opinion, is not well advised to challenge the appointment order issued pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th August, 2003, Annexure-2. 3. I do not see any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)