Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.- The writ petitioner Ms. Dhudi Chaudhary; a physically handicapped person being disabled by both the hands applied for the post of Lecturer (History) advertised by the respondent - RPSC and claimed such appointment against the reserved vacancies for physically handicapped persons. The said advertisement was issued in the year 2001 and the petitioner was called for the interview vide Annex. 3 dtd. 4.1.2003, but was later on not offered the appointment on the ground that the physically disability in the case of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit and scope of disability prescribed for said position, namely, OUBL (orthopaedically handicap in one tog or both legs). This category of OUBL did not include the petitioner's disability which was described in the medical certificate as "Ankylosis right elbow in 90% flexion partial Ankylosis right wrist and finger, amputation thumb and index finger left panel, Ankylosis left wrist in 90% extension." The total disability was measured by the Medical Board at 60% in the said certificate. The petitioner claimed the relief in the writ petition that the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of reservation on the said post by virtue of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the PWD) Act, 1995). The petitioner also challenged the validity of Rules framed by the State Government under the said Central enactment known as Rajasthan Employment of Disabled Persons Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2000) as amended vide notification dtd. 10.10.2002 issued by the State Government.

2. The second writ petition filed by Mr. Mahesh Kumar Monga is by the person who was also physically handicap in the category of OL/BL and was selected for the said appointment, but could not be provided this appointment on account of exparte interim order passed in the aforesaid first writ petition No. 1567/2003 filed by the petitioner Ms. Dhudi Choudhary in which on 10.4.2003, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to keep one post of Lecturer (History) , which was the only post available, reserved for the petitioner Ms. Dhudi Chaudhary.

4. By the consent of the parties, final arguments were heard in both the writ petitions and both the writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.

5. Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Dhudi Chaudhary submitted that Section 33 of the PWD Act which provides for reservation for all the three categories of physically disabled persons also provides for locomotor disability which is applicable in the present case and does not make any distinction for physical disability in the form of OUBL and disability of hands like in the case of the petitioner viz. Ankylosis and is therefore, while issuing the advertisement Annex. 1, the. respondent- State could not have provided disability of OL and BL only to be given such benefit of quota. reservation for the post of School Lecturer (History) and therefore, to this extent, the condition in advertisement as well as Rules of 2000 aforesaid deserve to be quashed. He further submitted that by the later notification dtd. 10.10.2002, the Schedule I and Schedule II to the said Rules of 2000 have been altogether deleted by the State Government and therefore, the said category of disability like OL and BL specified in the advertisement and in the said Schedule I and Schedule II of the Rules of 2000 cannot put a ban on the appointment of the present petitioner to the said post and the amendment in the Rules of 2000 by the notification dtd. 10.10.2002 deserves to be given retrospective effect. Relying upon the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Arvind Kumar Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007(11) WLC 402. == RLW 2006(4) Raj. 3149, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bifurcation of disability could