S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, a direction is sought to the Delhi High Court Establishment, through its Registrar General (hereafter called “the High Court Establishment”) to reserve 3% of the vacancies for the disabled persons, in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination-2013 and consequently reserve 3% of the posts of the total cadre strength of that Service (hereafter referred to as “DHJS”) and consider his case as well in the category of “disabled persons”. Consequently, direction to the High Court Establishment to grant extra 30 minutes to the petitioner for attempting the DHJS Examination, in respect of the direct recruitment quota is also sought.

2. The petitioner has been practicing as an advocate since 1998; he claims to be disabled in terms of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as the “Disabilities Act”). He suffers from what is termed as “FOLLOW UP CASE OF HYDROCEPHALUS WITH STUNT SURGERY WITH MYOSITIS OSSIFICANS HIP WITH ANKYLOSED HIP”. This condition, the petitioner says, is described as “locomotor disability” under the Disabilities Act which entitles him to benefits under that law, especially Section 33. The petitioner contends that in terms of an old 1977 Central Government notification, reservations to the extent of 3% for persons with disabilities was provided for in Group-C and Group-D posts and in Central Public Service Undertakings. There was a continuous demand to extend that benefit to Group-A and Group-B posts eventually leading to litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution which culminated in the decision reported as National Federation of Blind v. Union Public Service Commission and Others AIR 1993 SC 1916. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, directed the Central Government to consider the feasibility of extending the reservations to Group-A and Group-B posts. The petitioner relies upon Section 33 of the Disabilities Act to urge that with its enactment, every appropriate government is obliged to appoint in every establishment not less than 3% of the vacancies, of the posts from amongst persons or class of persons with disabilities such as blindness or blurred vision, hearing impairment or locomotor disabilities or cerebral palsy.

3. The petitioner then refers to various developments, including the judgment of a Single Judge in Ravi Kumar Arora v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. reported as (111) 2004 DLT 126 which was eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner also refers to another Division Bench ruling in All India Confederation of the Blind v. Union of India (Ministry of Railways) (W.P.(C) 23132/2005) where a direction to the Central Government to fill-up backlog of reserved posts of disabled category of candidates, on the basis of total cadre strength and not on the basis of vacancies, was given. It is submitted that with the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, reported as Union of India (UOI) and Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. 2013 (10) SCC 772, a wide nature of the rights, enuring to all citizens with disabilities and the corresponding obligation to fill-up at least 3% of the vacancies in respect of each service and post has been mandated.

4. The petitioner complains that the advertisement dated 30.12.2013 issued by the High Court Establishment, calling for applications and advertising 14 vacancies (4 set apart for SC/ST candidates and 10 for general candidates) is contrary to the express provisions of the Disabilities Act and the guidelines issued in that regard. Emphasizing Section 33, the petitioner argues that since he suffers from locomotor disability, the High Court Establishment was under a duty to set-apart the appropriate number of posts having regard to the total cadre strength of 224 posts in DHJS. It is argued that the omission to make appropriate reservation in the proposed or on