1. The petitioner is a visually handicapped/differently abled person who suffers from 100% blindness. He appeared in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for which advertisement was issued on 26.12.2011 and published on 28.12.2011. The petitioner after clearing the preliminary examination appeared in the mains examination on 4.5.2013 and he was interviewed also between 27.11.2013 and 27.12.2013. He submitted his preference for the post of Naib Tahsildar and four other posts on 28.11.2013 and he also claimed age relaxation on the said post as he was, on the cutoff date, aged 38 years 5 months 11 days and on 30.12.2013, result was declared. The petitioner secured tenth position in the merit list and thereafter he was appointed on the post of Naib Tahsildar.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition on 3.2.2014 stating inter-alia that a writ be issued directing the respondents to grant upper age relaxation up to 10 years to the petitioner for Class-II post and also prayed relief that he be considered for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector and further prayed that the respondent Chhattisgarh PSC be directed to reserve vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short the Act of 1995).

3. Return has been filed by the State Government holding that the State Government in accordance with the proviso to Section 33 of the Act of 1995 issued notification dated 7.9. 2006 exempting the cadre posts of State Administrative Services from the operation of Section 33 of the Act of 1995 and the benefit of age relaxation of 10 years is only available to Class-III and Class-IV posts as per the circular dated 12.2.1981.

4. The Chhattisgarh PSC has also filed return stating inter-alia that in respect of reservation of posts the State Government has clearly informed while sending requisition form for the post of Deputy Collector that the post of Deputy Collector is exempted under the proviso to Section 33 of the Act of 1995 and therefore reservation was not provided for the post of Deputy Collector.

5. Application for amendment in the petition was filed by the petitioner on 19.8.2014 challenging the circular dated 12.2.1981 which has been rejected by this Court by order dated 2.9.2014.

6. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the State Government ought to have identified and reserved 3% posts for physically disabled persons as provided in Section 33 of the Act of 1995. He would further submit that age relaxation ought to have been granted to Class-I and Class-II posts by the State Government, as the petitioner had worked on the post of Shiksha Karmi for five years as such, the act of the State Government in not granting age relaxation to Class-I and Class-II posts and further not providing reservation to the extent of 3% to the differently abled persons, as provided in Section 33 of the Act of 1995, is absolutely illegal and bad in law.

7. Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ respondent No. 1, would submit that the State Government had already issued circular under the proviso to Section 33 of the Act of 1995 exempting the cadre posts from the operation of Section 33 and the State Government had issued circular dated 12.2.1981 by which only for Class-III and Class-IV posts, age relaxation of ten years would be provided. The petitioner had already challenged the circular dated 12.2.1981 by way of application for amendment which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 2.9.2014.

8. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh PSC/respondent No. 2, would submit that the petitioner had never applied for the post of Deputy Collector which is apparent from his preference given on 28.11.2013 and the petitioner having availed