1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner who is physically handicapped with 40% permanent locomotor disability, seeking his fair consideration for appointment to the post of Junior Lab. Assistant, advertised alongwith other posts vide advertisement dated 09.06.05 (Ann. 8) whereby in all 14 vacancies were initially advertised but selection has made against 30 vacancies out of which one vacancy against 3% was reserved for physically handicapped quota.

2. Minimum qualification for the post of Jr. Lab. Assistant is Secondary (Science) or equivalent declared by Government. Under advertisement (Ann. 8) there is no specific clause mentioned with respect to 3% quota reserved for physically handicapped persons but it has come on record that such a reservation has been provided to physically handicapped persons in course of process of selection to the post in question.

3. Petitioner & other similarly situated persons applied for consideration of their candidature for the post of Junior Lab. Assistant against 3% quota reserved for physically handicapped persons as per their policy.

4. Case of the petitioner is that despite having secured 69.67% and 61.85% marks respectively in Secondary & Sr. Secondary examinations and eligible against reserved quota for physically handicapped, he was not called for interview; hence approached this Court by way of instant petition. Vide interim order dated 10.03.06, this Court directed not to fill up vacancy reserved for physically handicapped till further orders.

5. Main grievance of petitioner is that when he is otherwise eligible and was entitled to be considered as one of eligible applicant being covered under physically handicapped reserved quota, denial of his consideration in the facts came on record, is wholly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. It would be proper to take note of additional affidavit which gives complete facts having been taken note of by respondents in the selection impugned and as per which, against post of Jr. Lab. Asstt., against 30 vacancies available, one vacancy was reserved against 3% quota for physically handicapped-against which in all 176 applications were received in the Office of respondents-out of which 111 applications are of whom suffering from post polio paralysis; 8 from ankylosis and remaining 57 applications are of persons either from category of blind, deaf or were unable to produce requisite medical certificates about nature of their disability whose applications being found incomplete were not considered. Thus out of total applications available for considerations against one vacancy reserved for physically handicapped were 119-for the purposes of scrutinising their applications and also to adjudge their suitability for the job in question, a Board was constituted of six members by respondents which considered over all suitability looking to nature of their deformity in disability and taking note of requirement of service, which according to the Board has minimum deformity/disability so as to perform duties of post of Jr. Lab. Asstt., finally considered respondent No. 3 to be suitable person despite the fact that others were also eligible and were much higher in order of merit qua him for appointment but were left out. To be more specific, respondent No. 3 stood at S.No. 113 in over all merit as he secured 41% and 40% marks in Secondary & Senior Secondary School examinations. This fact has also not been denied that there were 13 persons above the petitioner in order of merit, as well.

7. According to respondents, out of all eligible applicants, the Board took three persons-two suffering from post polio paralysis and one from ankylosis who were called for interview and finally selected respondent No. 3 to be best suitable person for the post in question and according to them higher percentage of marks in academic qualification cannot be considered as the basis for h