2. Petitioner is a person with benchmark disability. He is challenging advertisement dated 30.12.2025 issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer. By said advertisement, 725 vacancies on the post of Lecturer in different subjects were advertised. Petitioner is eligible for the post of Hindi and Sanskrit for which 78 and 62 vacancies respectively have been advertised.

3. Petitioner contends that even though three vacancies were reserved for persons with disability in Hindu subject and two vacancies were reserved for such persons in Sanskrit subject; however, distribution of such vacancy amongst different vertical categories was not indicated in the advertisement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner belongs to General Category and he apprehend that all the vacancies which are reserved for persons with disability in Hindi and Sanskrit subject would be eaten away by persons belonging to SC or ST category.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the roster issued by State Government vide G.O. dated 22.05.2020.

6. Learned State Counsel, per contra submits that as per provisions of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2017, persons with benchmark disability are entitled to reservation to the extent of 4% in public services.

7. He submits that required number of vacancies has been reserved for persons with disability in the selection in question and grievance raised by petitioner is unfounded.

8. He further submits that in the roster issued by State Government vide G.O. dated 22.05.2020, the State Government or the Selecting Body is not expected to indicate distribution of vacancies reserved for persons with disability, amongst different vertical category.

9. He submits that persons with disability who are selected will be allotted vacancy by the selecting body depending upon their merit and other laid down criteria.

10. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel.

11. There is no infirmity in impugned advertisement as sufficient number of vacancies has been earmarked for persons with disabilities in Hindi and Sanskrit subject.

12. Petitioner apprehends that sufficient number of vacancies would not be available to general category candidates and all the vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities would be filled by appointing persons belonging to SC category.

13. The apprehension expressed by petitioner is unfounded and there is no cause of action available to the petitioner. A writ petition challenging advertisement would not be maintainable if it is based only on the apprehension that the reservation roster/policy may be violated by the authorities while making appointment. Thus, the writ petition is premature.

14. However, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation highlighting the apprehension expressed by him. If he makes such representation to the Secretary, Appointment and Personnel within two weeks, the Secretary concerned shall take decision thereupon, as per law, within ten weeks thereafter.