Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 7.11.2000 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioner as he has already appeared for interview on 15.11.2000 by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated 10.11.2000 and if he is found successful, he be given appointment, with all consequential benefits and furthermore, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as" the Rules of 1976") be declared ultra vires.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner is having total blindness of 98% having a residual vision of right eye F. Cat 5' and for the left eye No. P.L. and for that, Certificate Annex. P -1 dated 16.3.1993 may be referred to. Annex. P -2 is a Ceritificate dated 3.12.2000 which shows that the petitioner is a blind person and comes under the category of Physically handicapped under the Rules of 1976. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "Commission"(the number and date of the advertisement were not mentioned by the petitioner but the copy of the said advertisement bearing No. 2/98 -99 dated 10.5.1999 was submitted by the respondent No. 1 Commission) for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 1999 and in response to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application duly filled -in all respect within the stipulated time against the handicapped quota under the category of blind. According to the petitioner, after scrutiny of his application, he was permitted to appear in the preliminary examination, which he qualified and thereafter, he was called to appear in the main examination. The result of the main examination was declared on 24.10.2000. The further case of the petitioner is that the result of the main examination shows that not a single candidate under the category of blind was called for interview, though the petitioner was the only candidate, who qualified the preliminary examination and appeared in the main examination under the category of blind candidates. The mark -sheet of the petitioner for RAS/RTS Combined Competition (Main) Examination, 1999 is Annex. P/4, which shows that he received 599 marks out of 1300 marks, but there is an endorsement in that mark -sheet to the effect "not qualified for interview" and this aspect has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the respondent No. 1 Commission has not laid down the qualifying/pass marks in individual paper and aggregate marks for this examination and when not a single person qualified under the category of physically handicapped and the petitioner was the only qualified person, therefore, he should have been called for interview under the category of blind. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 4.11.2000, a copy of which is marked as Annex. P/5. The further case of the petitioner is that as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1976, 3% seats are reserved for physically handicapped category and as per the number of vacancies determined 15 vacancies were reserved for the physically handicapped candidates and out of 15 seats, 5 seats were reserved for the blind and as per 100 point roster (Annex. P/3) point No. 34 was meant for the blind candidates and thus, the petitioner should have been called for interview from the blind category. It has been further submitted by the petitioner that as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, physically handicapped candidates are entitled for relaxation of 5% of qualifying or pass marks in individual paper and in aggregate marks, whichever prescribed in any examination. The futrher case of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly treated as a member of general category, though he belonged to general category, but according to him, there should be a separate category of blind and treating the petitioner in general category and thus granting relaxation of 5% marks by the respondents was wrong.
(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that though he secured 599 marks in the main examination, but a candidate in reserved category securing 529 marks was called for interview and thus, the petitioner should also have been called for interview and the action of the respondents in not calling the petitioner for interview is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 Commission and the main contentions of the respondent No. 1 Commission are: (1) That the petitioner is entitled to get concession as provided under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 in the category in which he falls, meaning thereby since the petitioner belongs to general category, therefore, his case would fall under the general category and the benefit of cut -off marks fixed for general category by giving 5% relaxation would be available to the petitioner and the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to the benefit available for reserved category of SC/ST is at all not tenable. (2) That in view of the interim order of this Court dated 10.11.2000, the petitioner was called for interview on 15.11.2000 on provisional basis, but since the petitioner did not qualify even for interview, therefore, his result was not declared. (3) That the category of physically handicapped is not a separate category, but resservation is provided in their respective category. Since the petitioner belogns to general category, therefore, he was given relaxation of 5% marks in the aggregate cut -off marks fixed in the general category and even after giving that relaxation, he did not obtain the qualifying marks for calling for interview. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.;