The main legal point established in the judgment is that candidates belonging to the Differently Abled Category are entitled to a relaxation of 20% and can be granted appointment based on their eligibility, even if the recruitment process is over.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition qua petitioner No. 2 Melap Hagavaniya.

2. Permission as prayed for is granted.

3. The present writ petition is therefore, dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No. 2 Melap Hagavaniya.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy in question is covered by the ratio as laid down in the case of Ranu Pandya & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21060/2018) decided on 09.12.2021 (At Jaipur Bench). Following the ratio as laid down in the case of Ranu Pandya (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Hemendra Kumari Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18114/2021) decided on 10.02.2022 observed as under:-

"These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who belong to Differently Abled Category having Locomotor disability ('LD').

Submissions have been made that in the Teachers Eligibility Test-2015 & 2017, they were not accorded relaxation to the extent of 20%, to which, they were entitled.

Submissions have also been made that the Division Bench in National Federation of the Blind & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4907/2019, decided on 22.07.2019 has held that the candidates suffering from physical disability were entitled to 20% relaxation and that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ranu Pandya & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21060/2018, decided on 09.12.2021 (At Jaipur Bench), following the judgment in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra), has ordered grant of benefit to the said candidates.

Submissions have been made that in case, the petitioners are accorded the benefit of relaxation, they would fall within the cut-off and are entitled to be granted appointment.

Learned Additional Advocate General made submissions that all the petitioners, who belong to the reserve category, the cut-off thereof was 40.67% and the petitioners have obtained marks higher than the cut-off, however, submissions have been made that the recruitment is long over, there are no vacant posts available and that as the petitioners have not impleaded the candidates appointed, having less marks than the petitioners, they cannot be granted relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the circumstances of the present case are not different from that of Ranu Pandya (supra) and as in the case of Ranu Pandya (supra), relief has been granted, the petitioners are entitled for the same relief.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ranu Pandya (supra) relying on the ratio in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra), came to the following conclusion and directed as under:-

"In the abovementioned facts and circumstances, the State cannot now take a stand that the said ratio as laid down in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra) would not be applicable for the other disabled people.

In view of the same, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to revise the result of the petitioners after granting 20% concession. If after granting concession, the petitioners are found eligible, they may be directed to be issued appointment letters within a period of four weeks.

The petition stands allowed."

A perusal of the cause title of the decision in the case of Ranu Pandya (supra) shows that there also none of the successful candidate were impleaded as respondents.

In view thereof, as the issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the order in the case of Ranu Pandya (supra), the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed with a similar direction as given in the case of Ranu Pandya (supra)."

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the State is in a process of preferring an ap