Reservation for persons with disabilities in the RJS could only be provided through rules made under Article 234 of the Constitution of India, which were yet to be finalized and notified.

ANIL DEV SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) SINCE the identical questions of fact and law have been raised in these writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners, who have filed these writ petitions by way of public interest litigation claim themselves to be persons with disabilities. They appeared in the R. J. S. Recruitment test 2003 held pursuant to the advertisement dated 4. 8. 2003 for filling up 89 vacancies calculated for the present year and 19 carried forward vacancies but no reservation for handicapped persons was proved. They seek declaration that the provisions of Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short, "the Act of 1995") are applicable to the R. J. S. Rules 1955 and they are entitled to 3% reservation for persons with disabilities under the said Act and the Rules framed by the State government thereunder. It is also prayed that directions be given to the RPSC for calling them for interview and to recommend their names for appointment to the RJS against the aforesaid quota of 3% provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

( 3 ) THE respondents have disputed their claim on the ground that there is no provision for reservation for persons with disabilities under the existing rules. Therefore, they are not entitled to such reservation, unless and until the rules providing for such reservation for handicapped persons are made.

( 4 ) SINCE the petitioners have not qualified for being invited for the ensuing interview, the question whether or not the handicapped persons can be considered for selection and appointment in the RJS against the advertised vacancies in the absence of the rules in this behalf is purely of academic value because even if there had been reservation for handicapped persons, the persons could not have been considered for the same.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the High Court has drafted the Rajasthan State Judicial Service rules, 2003 as per the directives of the Supreme Court given All India Judges Association v Union of India, (2002)4 SCC 247=2002 (2) SLJ 480 (SC), while accepting Justice Shetty commissions Report The draft of the rules inter alia provides 3% reservation for persons with disabilities in the RJS After approval of the Full Court on 4 4 2003, the draft of the rules was sent to the State Government, because the said rules are to be made by the governor as provided under Article 234 of the Constitution of India after consultation with the RPSC It appears that the draft rules were forwarded by the State Government to the rpsc for the purpose of consultation but they are still pending consideration and final is ation the, petitioners have, therefore, by way of these writ petitions claimed reservation under the Act of 1995 and the Rules made by the State Government thereunder Since the relevant rules, have not been made by the Governor and have not been notified so far, there is presently no reservation for the persons with disabilities for appointment in the Rajasthan judicial Service.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under the Act of 1995, the handicapped persons are entitled to be considered against the advertised vacancies in R J S to the extent of 3% of the vacancies This argument is being advanced on the basis of sections 32 and 33 of the Act of 1995 They have also canvassed that the Act of 1995 being a social welfare legislation, rule of beneficent construction must be adopted to construe sections 32 and 33 thereof In support of their submission, they have relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalappa Lingappa v Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd , AIR 1981 sc 852=1981 (1) SLJ 420 (SC ).

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sections 32 and 33 of the Act of 1995 need to be noticed These provisions read as follows"32 Identification of posts which can be re