JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the grievance that though she had applied under the category of TSP-ST (Female), without claiming any reservation qua the category - Persons with Disabilities, yet the respondents have rejected her candidature, citing the following reason:

"Out of other PH category"

2. The facts apropos petitioner's predicament are that pursuant to advertisement dated 30.05.2018, issued for filling up 522 posts of Nurse Grade-II in TSP area, the petitioner submitted her application form as TSP-ST(Female) candidate.

3. It is pertinent that petitioner had not claimed any reservation under the Person with Disability category.

4. Petitioner having secured 50.825 marks was called for documents verification.

5. When petitioner appeared for documents verification, the respondents conducted her medical examination. Therafter, upon publication of provisional select list on 25.11.2019, the petitioner found her name missing, despite having secured 50.825 marks, whereas the cut-off for her category [TSP-ST (Female)] was 49.709 marks.

6. A list of rejected candidates, while indicating reasons for which their candidature have been rejected, was also published along with the provisional select list aforesaid. Petitioner's candidature was rejected, as according to the respondents, she was physically handicapped in other category.

7. The petitioner submitted online grievance by way of a representation dated 27.11.2019.

8. Petitioner's name could not find place in final select list, as her representation was not heeded to or considered favorably.

9. Faced with such situation, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

10. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, oppugning rejection of petitioner's candidature submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post in TSP-ST (Female) category, without claiming any reservation as a Person with Disability, hence, her right of being considered as a TSP-ST (Female) candidate could not be denied. He fervently added that the respondents cannot take into consideration petitioner's disability, which too is to the extent of 24% (less than 40%) in one arm (hand) to non-suit her. It was also argued that had the petitioner claimed reservation for the seats earmarked for persons with disabilities, the respondents would perhaps be justified in rejecting her candidature, for having a disability other than the one designated for the post in question.

11. Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submitted that true it is, that the petitioner had neither claimed any reservation nor had she submitted her application form as a physically disabled person; but during her medical examination, when it transpired that she was having 24% disability in one of her arms, her candidature was rejected.

12. The basic plank of the respondents to justify their action has been that the post of Nurse Grade-II had been earmarked or identified for persons with locomotor disability OL (One Leg) and as such a person with one leg impairment alone, is suitable or fit for appointment. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner, who is having 24% disability in one arm cannot be appointed.

13. Elaborating his stand aforesaid, learned counsel submitted that the determination of posts for Persons with Disabilities is based on scientific study, assessing suitability of persons with particular kind of disability. He argued that a conjoint reading of Rules 35 & 36 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2011') suggests that a person with a particular disability alone is eligible for appointment to a particular post, which has been identified by the State Government.

14. Relying upon the judgment dated 08.01.2016 rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.