Alok Sharma, J.

The respondent 'Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter 'RPSC') issued employment notification no. 2/2011-12 for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor/Senior Demonstrator in different disciplines under Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1962'). Under the aforesaid employment notification, amongst the vacancies for the post of Assistant Professor in General Surgery (APGS), one was reserved for persons suffering from physical disability. Vide corrigendum letter no. 4/2012-13 this was enhanced to two.

2. The petitioner having passed the MBBS examination and having completed the compulsory rotating internship (one year programme) was awarded a degree in MBBS in 1992. Subsequently, he acquired a degree as Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) in 1996 and thereafter Master of Surgery (General Surgery) (MS) in 2001-all from the University of Rajasthan. The petitioner is orthopaedically handicapped having suffered post polio paralysis of the left lower limb. A certificate of disability evidencing more than 40% disability has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is also registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council, Jaipur effective 21.07.1992 and so certified. These facts are not in dispute.

3. Pursuant to the employment notification dated 13.05.2011 the petitioner applied for appointment on one of the two post of APGS reserved for persons suffering physical disability. He passed the screening test held on 10.07.2012 and was called for interview on 10.05.2013 along with all original documents. He complied and appeared for the interview. All requisite documents of eligibility were submitted. However in the select list dated 23.05.2013 the petitioner did not find a place.

Hence this petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that aside of other grounds agitated in support of the writ petition, in terms of the information received by the petitioner from RPSC on 09.07.2013 under the Right to Information Act, it transpires that the petitioner had obtained 47 marks in the interview for reasons of which RPSC with reference of the purportedly minimum qualifying 50 marks for open category candidate at the interview illegally found him unsuitable and rejected his candidature. Counsel submitted on instructions of the petitioner who is in Court, that he is however now abandoning the issue of the illegality of RPSC determining minimum qualifying marks in the interview, 50 for open category candidates and 45 for reserved category (SC/ST/OBC) when no such provision obtains or either in the relevant rules i.e. Rules of 1962 nor was set out in the advertisement. Counsel then submitted that even with 47 marks, the petitioner a person suffering physical disability was entitled to appointment to the post of APGS on one of the two seats in the quota reserved for physically disabled persons, both of which have remained unfilled. This, counsel submitted, because the petitioner was entitled to be treated at par with reserve category candidates (who as per RPSC's full Commission decision require 45 marks at the interview to be found to be suitable for APGS) for ascertaining his suitability.

5. Counsel submitted that the Apex Court in [(2004) 10 SCC 191] A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. has held that since the quota for the physically disabled is in the nature of horizontal reservation, it cuts across all vertical reservations categories such as SC, ST, OBC and General, consequent to which the physically disabled candidates of all categories are entitled to similar standards of evaluation for ascertaining their suitability, as those in the reserved category are. The Apex Court has held that physically disabled candidates cutting across all vertical categories SC, ST, OBC and General constitute a homogeneous class members of which are entitled to similar treatment. And with physically disabled SC/ST/OBC candidates having a lower