Honble MAHESHWARI, J.–This writ petition and the connected writ petitions shown in the Schedule appended to this order involving common questions of law and facts have been heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2). In sum and substance, all these petitions relate to the question of operation and applicability of rule 7 A (iii) of the Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2000 (the Rules of 2000) for the purpose of selections to the post of Teacher Gr.lll under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (the Rules of 1996).

(3). The factual aspects of the matter are not much in controversy and for the purpose of reference, the averments as taken in CWP No.210/2007 may be noticed. The respondent No.2 issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.lll on 30.10.2006; and the petitioners considering themselves eligible, applied in response to the said advertisement. It has been averred that the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification dated 1.8.2005 making amendment to the Rules of 2000 whereby Rule 7A was inserted which provides for concessions to the disabled persons.; that sub-rule (iii) of Rule 7A provides that the condition or desirability of training/test/experience wherever prescribed shall not apply to the disabled persons for temporary appointment; that where a particular training is essential for appointment to a post, the disabled person may be required to receive such training within two years of his appointment. The petitioners have averred that they are disabled persons and are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Rules of 2000 but, while issuing advertisement, the concession as provided under rule 7A of the Rules of 2000 has not been extended to the disabled persons inasmuch as the concession in relation to the condition of teachers training for the purpose of the said selections has not been allowed. The petitioners submit that they are entitled for such concession in relation to the eligibility condition regarding possessing of certificate, diploma or degree of B.S.T.C./B.Ed. etc. and, if selected, they will get the required training within a period of two years from the date of appointment as provided under the Rules of 2000. It may be pointed out that the petitioner in CWP No.5629/2005 applied in pursuance of similar nature advertisement issued in the year 2004 and appeared in the competitive examination; but could not obtain requisite qualification of B.Ed, before the cut-off date i.e. 5.1.2005 and hence his candidature was rejected by the letter dated 23.7.2005. The petitioner then filed the said writ petition with the similar nature claim that in view of amendment to the Rules of 2000, precondition of training/test/experience shall not apply to the petitioner who is a disabled person. Though the candidature of the said writ petitioner had been cancelled even prior to the said amendment to the Rules of 2000 on 1.8.2005, and such amendment hardly applies to said petitioner, however, leaving such aspect aside, the said matter has also been examined on the merits of the contentions.

(4). According to the respondents, the entire claim on the basis of new Rule 7A of the Rules of 2000 is wholly misconceived and untenable; and the petitioners are misconstruing the implication of the amended Rule 7A. It has been averred that Clause (iii) of Rule 7A clearly shows that the condition or desirability of training/test/experience wherever prescribed shall not apply to the disabled persons who are to be appointed temporarily and thus, this clause shall be attracted only in the matter of temporary appointment and not for permanent appointment; that had there been any intention of the legislature to provide such relaxation to substantive/permanent employment, there was no need to use the words "temporary appointment". It has further been averred that there are two types of appointments: (i) temporary/adhoc appointment; and (ii) substantive/perma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document