2026:JHHC:17723 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 3083 of 2022 1. Sadanand Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Chamdrama Ram, Resident of Jabra, P.O. & P.S.-Korra, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand – 854108 2. Binay Kumar Agrawal, aged about 41 years, Son of Late Ravindra Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Sharma Colony, Diri Road, P.O. & P.S.-Barkakana, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 3. Ramesh Kumar Rajak, aged about 34 years, Son of Arjun Dhobi, Resident of Lochanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, District-Koderma, Jharkhand-825410. …… Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. P.S. – Jagarnathpur, Jharkhand. 3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, having its office at Circular Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. – Lalpur, District – Ranchi, 4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. – Lalpur, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. …… RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, S.C.-V For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Adv Mr. Prince Kumar, Adv Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv Mr. Jay Prakash, Adv C.A.V. ON: 06/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following relief (s): - i. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing part of the final result-cum-merit list pursuant to 7th Combined Civil Services Examination-2021 being Advertisement No. 1/2021 (Annexure-6), so far it relates to filing up the vacancies of Horizontal Reservation (disabled candidates) since the benefit of horizontal reservation so far the disabled candidates are concerned has not 2026:JHHC:17723 2 been implemented in light of the prevailing rules, regulations and guidelines. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) commanding upon the Respondents to fill up all 07 seats which were horizontally reserved for disabled candidates and further for issuance of further appropriate direction upon the respondents not to adjust the horizontally reserved seats reserved for disable candidates with any other successful candidates. AND/OR iii. For issuance of such other writ, order or direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (“JPSC”) inviting the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Civil Servants (Class – II posts) in different departments of the State of Jharkhand. Total 252 posts were advertised, out of which total 18 posts were horizontally reserved, out of that 7 seats were reserved for differently abled candidates. All the petitioners belong to differently abled category. 4. Petitioner no. 1 belongs to EBC-I category and has filled- up the form under Locomotive category. Petitioner no. 2 belongs to UNR Category and has filled-up the form under Blind category and the petitioner no. 3 belongs to SC Category and has filled-up the form under Locomotive category. 5. All the petitioners have been declared successful in the preliminary test examination. Thereafter, they were called for appearing in mains examination. After the mains examination, only the petitioner no. 1 was called for interview and document verification. 2026:JHHC:17723 3 6. In the advertisement, total 7 seats were horizontally reserved for differently abled candidates out of which 2 seats were reserved for blind, 2 seats for hearing impediments, 2 seats for locomotive and 1 seat for autism/multiple disabilities. 7. JPSC has called only four candidates under differently abled category for interview including the petitioner no. 1, out of which JPSC has recommended only three candidates for appointment out of which 1 candidate recommended under category of blind having total marks 580 and other 2 candidates were recommended under Locomotive category having total 594 marks and 584 marks respectively. Out of total 4 candidates, only 3 candidates have been found place in the merit list, except petitioner no.1. 8. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that out of total 7 posts reserved horizontally for differently abled persons, only 3 candidates have been selected and 4 seats which should be kept vacant in a situation of non-availability of eligible candidates for carrying forward in the next recruitment process as per the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, but JPSC has filled-up those four seats by adjusting the unreserved category candidates in spite of the fact that the petitioner no. 1 who has been called for interview and has obtained total 580 marks, has not been 2026:JHHC:17723 4 recommended against the four vacant seats i.e. 1 post for blind category, 2 for hearing impediment and 1 post for autism/multiple disability 9. Further, it has been contended that the JPSC should have called at least, 17.5, i.e. to say 18 number of candidates for the interview, which is 2.5 times of candidates against the 7 posts as per the Rule – 3(iii) of Appendix-I, Section-I (Plan of Examination) of Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 in spite of availability of 43 eligible candidates as they all have obtained including the petitioners more than minimum qualifying marks i.e. 40% in aggregate in the mains examinations, but JPSC has only called four candidates including the petitioner no. 1 against the 7 posts for differently abled persons. 10. Further, it has been submitted that as per the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 441, dated 23.04.2018 as well as Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021, the petitioner no. 1 should have been appointed against the remaining four vacancies, which is reserved for differently abled persons by applying the provisions of sections – 33 and 36 of Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 by interchange amongst the three categories as mentioned in the provisions, which has remained 2026:JHHC:17723 5 unfilled and so far as petitioner no. 2 and 3 are concerned, they must be called for interview as they have obtained more marks than the minimum qualifying marks as per the Rules, but JPSC has arbitrarily not called them for the interview. 11. Further, the Learned Counsel of petitioners contented that his case is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of “Kapildev Hansda & Anr. Vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors” being S.L.P (C) No. 38172 of 2016. 12. Learned Counsel of petitioners further requested that instead of quashing the merit list, it would suffice, if the directions be issued for consideration of candidature for appointment of petitioners in light of available vacancies. 13. The learned Counsel of JPSC relying upon their counter affidavit has contended that they have made the recommendation of 2 candidates under locomotive category and 1 candidate under blind category, out of total 7 vacancies horizontally reserved for differently abled candidates. He further contended from their supplementary counter affidavits that they have not made recommendation for appointment against four posts i.e. 1 for blind category, 2 for hearing impediment and 1 for autism in view of non-availability of the candidates in the aforesaid category. 2026:JHHC:17723 6 14. Further, it has been contended that the petitioner no. 2 and 3 are not declared successful in the main examination and so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he has applied under the category of locomotive, hence, due to non- availability of seats in locomotive category, he was not recommended for appointment. 15. The relevant paragraphs of Counter Affidavits by JPSC on 11.05.2023 with respect to recommendation against differently abled category are quoted as under:- “43. That it is stated that due to non- Availability of the candidates, JPSC has not made recommendation for appointment against 1 post of the Blind / Low Vision, 2 posts of hearing impairment and 1 post of locomotive category.” 16. Thereafter, JPSC has filed supplementary counter affidavit on 06.09.2023, wherein, the following stand has been taken with respect to availability and recommendations of post under differently abled category :- “22. That it is stated that petitioner No. 1 has secured 580 marks and as such Petitioner No.1 has not been declared successful for the appointment. 23. That it would be evident from the materials available on the record that 2 posts each were requisitioned by the Department of Personnel administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Urban Planning and Housing Development and Department of School Education and Literacy, govt. of Jharkhand for Physically handicapped candidate in blind, hearing impairment and locomotive category respectively and one post was also requisitioned for Autism category by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand i.e. all together 7 posts. 24. That it would be evident from the materials available on the record that Petitioner No.1 belongs to EBC-I category (Locomotive), Petitioner No.2 belongs to unreserved category(Blind) and Petitioner No.3 belongs to S.C Category (Locomotive). 25. That it would be also evident from the facts stated above that two posts under Physically handicapped (Locomotive) category were requisitioned and JPSC has already made recommendation for appointment of two candidates under Physically handicapped (Locomotive) category and one candidate under Physically handicapped (Blind) category. 26. That it would be also evident from the facts stated above that Petitioner No. 2 and 3 were not declared successful in the mains examination result dated 30.04.2022 and Petitioner No.1 has not been declared successful in the final result dated 31.05.2022 in view of the 2026:JHHC:17723 7 fact that he has secured 580 marks which is less than the last successful candidate under Locomotive category. 27. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the prayer as made by the Petitioners is not maintainable and fit to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court in view of the fact that recommendation has already been made for appointment against the Locomotive category and Petitioners are unsuccessful candidates. 28. That it is stated that recommendation has also been made for appointment for Physically handicapped (Blind) Category and Petitioner no.2 has not been declared successful in the mains examination result and as such prayer as made by the Petitioner No.2 is also not maintainable and fit to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court. 29. That it is stated that JPSC has not made recommendation for appointment against 4 posts under Physically Handicapped category i.e. Blind (1), Hearing impairment(2) and autism (1) in view of the non- availability of the candidates in the aforesaid categories. 30. That it would be evident from perusal of Annexure-D Series that Department of Personnel, administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Urban Planning and Housing Development and Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand have not sent the specific vacancies for the Physically handicapped categories candidates and it was not cleared as to which post under which category have to be kept vacant as unfilled vacancy and as such while publication of the final result dated 31.05.2022 for appointment of the successful candidate, JPSC has also made recommendation against the aforesaid 4 unfilled posts of Physically Handicapped under Blind, Hearing impairment and autism category. 31. That it is stated that aforesaid 4 posts of the Physically handicapped category will be again requisitioned for appointment by the concerned Department if they decide to fill up the aforesaid posts in the next selection process. 32. That it is well settled law that it is power and prerogative of the State Govt to fill up or to not fill up the posts.” 17. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.09.2023, wherein, they mentioned the details of candidates who have not preferred to join the services, as such vacancies are still available. Subsequently, the JPSC has filed 2nd supplementary counter affidavit dated 09.01.2024, wherein they have taken the following stands:- “24. That it is stated that in respect of the aforesaid statements as made by the petitioners in Para-17 and 18 of their Rejoinder, it is most humbly submitted that in term of Clause 3 (xv) of Resolution dated 27.11.2012 of the state Provides that unfilled vacancies are to be carried over to the next examination and that the unfilled vacancies would not be available retrospective to the examination.” 18. Thereafter, JPSC has filed “Reply on behalf of the Respondent No 3 and 4 to the rejoinder dated 18.09.2023 filed 2026:JHHC:17723 8 by the petitioner” upon the direction issued by co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024, wherein the JPSC has taken following similar stand:- “29. That it is relevant to mention here that all together 7 posts for Physically Handicapped Categories candidates collectively were requisitioned without indicating the category of the physically handicapped categories candidates which would be evident from the materials available on the record. 30. That it is not out of place to mention here that JPSC has not made recommendation for appointment against 4 posts under Physically Handicapped categories i.e. Blind (1), Hearing impairment(2) and autism (1) in view of the non-availability of the candidates in the aforesaid categories.” 19. The State Government by filing their Counter Affidavit dated 19.09.2023 has taken the following stand:- “9. That it is stated and humbly submitted that the procedure of granting reservation to disabled persons has been dealt with in the State Government's resolution no. 2249 dated 03.04.2018, whereunder, at Clause 7 it has been mandated that in case of unavailability of eligible candidates of disabled category, the remaining vacancy under the disabled category shall be carried forward for the next vacancy year. Under the aforesaid provision, due to non-availability of eligible candidates, the vacancy requisitioned under physically disabled category has been carried forward for the next vacancy year. Thus, in such circumstances, there is no provision for keeping a specified number of seats reserved/unfilled under horizontal reservation in a particular category". 20. Having heard learned counsels of the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2021 published by the JPSC for appointment of the post of Class-II post of Civil Servants, it appears that the petitioner no. 1 has been declared successful in the mains examination and has been called for interview and document verification. The JPSC has recommended only 3 candidates out of total 7 posts reserved for differently abled persons, out of which 1 under blind category and 2 candidates under locomotive category. The 2026:JHHC:17723 9 remaining four seats out of which 1 seat under Blind, 2 under hearing impediment and 1 seat under autism/multiple disability remained vacant due to non-availability of the eligible candidates in the aforesaid category and admittedly the JPSC has not made recommendation for appointment against said 4 posts under differently abled categories. 21. The fact that the petitioner no. 1 is differently abled person belonging to locomotive category is not in dispute and he has been declared successful in mains examination, thereafter, called for interview and document verification and has obtained total 580 marks. 22. It is further not in dispute that total 4 seats out of 7 are reserved for differently abled persons are vacant due to non-availability of the candidates. 23. Section 34 of The Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 stipulates the following: “34. Reservation.—(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely: — (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities: Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time: Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such 2026:JHHC:17723 10 conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability: Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. (3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.” 24. The aforesaid provisions of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 provides for the reservation of posts for person or a class of persons with disability and it further mandates that where, in any recruitment year, a vacancy cannot be filed up, due to non-availability of a suitable candidate or for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year. In addition, the vacancies can be interchanged among the three categories mentioned in Section 34 (1) of the Act. 25. The aforesaid provisions of The Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 has been implemented by the State Government vide Notification No. 441, dated 23.04.2018. Further Rule – 25 and 39 of Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rule, 2021 states as under: - “25. The eligibility for availing reservation against the vacancies reserved for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities shall be the same as prescribed in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016)”. Provided further that the Persons with Benchmark Disability shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of Functional Classification and Physical Requirements (abilities 2026:JHHC:17723 11 /disabilities) consistent with requirements of the identified service/post as may be prescribed by its cadre controlling authority. 39. Safeguards: - “Nothing in these rules or in any order issued under them shall have the effect of depriving any person of any right or privilege to which he is entitled to, by or under, any law in force.” 26. In light of the aforesaid provisions, the reserved vacancies for differently abled persons are liable to be offered to the next candidate in order of merit and if no such candidates are available, then in that eventuality, those vacancies are interchangeable also. 27. In the present case, 4 seats of differently abled category are lying vacant, out of which by applying the principle of interchangeability, the petitioner no. 1 could have been easily accommodated by the JPSC and should have been recommended for appointment as he has obtained 580 marks and candidates having equal marks to the petitioner no. 1 have been recommended for appointment from the category of differently abled. 28. The reference being made of the judgment dated 06.05.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapildev Hansda & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand & Ors. being S.L.P (C) No. 38172 of 2016, whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar matter arising out from 5th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by JPSC has directed for consideration of appointment in terms of Section 33 and 36 of “The Person with Disabilities (Equal 2026:JHHC:17723 12 Opportunities, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which is pari materia to Section 34 of “The Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016”, considering that the post inter se can be exchanged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. As noticed earlier, the advertisement contemplated five seats reserved for the specially-abled persons, which were further sub- categorized in accordance with Section 33 of the Act. It further appears that some of the specially-abled candidates belonging to the three sub- categories of Section 33 have been offered appointment by virtue of the merit position they earned in the competitive examination. It seems undisputed that the specially-abled candidates, who have been appointed, have secured merit higher than some of the open category candidates. Consequently, they have occupied the open category posts as per their merit. The reserved vacancies were, thus, liable to be offered to the next candidates in order of merit falling in the sub- categories of subsection 33 of the Act and if no such candidate was available, in that eventuality, those vacancies were inter-changeable also. 10. It seems that Writ Petition (PIL) No.7525/2013 (Arun Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and another) was filed before the High Court purportedly in public interest. The said writ petition was essentially meant for giving effect to the provisions of the Act as construed by this Court in the case of National Federation of Blind vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 411. The High Court disapproved the manner in which the State of Jharkhand was calculating the vacancies for specially-abled persons and consequently issued the following directions through paragraph 14 of its judgment dated 09.03.2016: “14. We however, clarify that once any one of the posts from roster point number 1 to 33 is kept reserved, another vacancy shall be reserved only from roster point number 34 to 67. The number of vacancies advertised shall not be a disability for not extending benefit under Section 33 to the person/persons belonging to any one of the three categories mentioned in Section 33. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand that vacancies at roster point number 33, 67 and 100 alone are available for appointment for differently-abled persons." 11. Thereafter, another public interest litigation being W.P.(PIL) No.5764/2015 was filed by one Pradeep Karan Siddharth, alleging widespread irregularities committed by the Public Service Commission in the subject-examination. This public interest litigation was not entertained by the High Court primarily on two counts, namely, (i) lack of locus standi to file a public interest litigation in service matters and (ii) that the public interest litigation-petitioner failed to disclose irregularities committed during the evaluation of the OMR answer sheets. 12. The High Court in that second public interest litigation recorded the statement of the Government counsel to the effect that the Government would provide suitable relaxation to the specially-abled candidates to enable them to appear in the next competitive examination. A direction was consequently issued in paragraph 7 of the judgment for providing such relaxation. 13. Unfortunately, the specially-abled candidates like the appellants, who had otherwise qualified the examination, were not party to these proceedings. They could not, therefore, espouse their cause. It could not be pointed out that in view of Section 33 read with Section 36 of 2026:JHHC:17723 13 the Act, the vacancies were liable to be filled in view of availability of the qualified candidates and in any case, such vacancies could be carried forward so that these are filled up only by the candidates falling within the subject-categories of Section 33 of the Act. The grant of benefit of age relaxation was neither here nor there, as the especially abled candidates never approached the State Government to grant them any such relief. 14. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that there was no need for the High Court to make the observations contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment, especially when it declined to entertain the public interest litigation. All that the High Court ought to have done was to direct the State Government to strictly comply with the statutory mandate of Section 33 read with Section 36 of the Act. 15. The resultant effect would be that if the posts reserved for the specially-abled persons, have been filled up by appointing the persons of those very categories, but if such appointees were higher in merit then some of the open category candidates, they are deemed to have occupied the open category posts. The resultant vacancies reserved for specially-abled persons must then be offered to the next candidates in order of merit provided that they have qualified the minimum benchmark. Since the appellants are stated to have successfully qualified the examination, we are of the view that the State Government is obligated to consider their claims for appointment against the reserved posts. We may hasten to add that there was only one post reserved in the locomotive sub-category. Both the appellants belong to that category. However, Section 36 of the Act provides that if the candidates belonging to sub-categories (i) and (ii), namely, candidates with blindness or low vision and hearing impairment are not available, in that event, the posts inter se can be exchanged. We are, thus, of the view that both the appellants can be accommodated against the posts reserved in terms of the Act. 16. The State of Jharkhand is, accordingly, directed to consider the claim of the appellants for appointment as per their merit in the subject selection process. The needful shall be done within a period of two months. On appointment, the appellants shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, namely, seniority and pay fixation, however, without any arrears of pay. They shall, however, be entitled to notional pay fixation. At this stage, it is pointed out that appellant no.2 qualified in the Sixth Jharkhand Public Service Commission Examination and has already been appointed as a Block Development Officer. The option shall be given to her to join the post that she may be found entitled to as per her merit in the Fifth Jharkhand Public Service Commission Examination, which, we are informed, would be in the Jharkhand Administrative Services. If such an offer is not acceptable to her, she will be deemed to have been appointed as a Block Development Officer pursuant to the Fifth Jharkhand Public Service Examination, and she will be entitled to seniority along with that batch without any additional monetary benefits, except pay fixation. 17. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.” Emphasis Supplied 29. On conjoint reading of Section 34 of The Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, Notification No. 441, dated 23.04.2018, Clause 25 and 39 of the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rule, 2021 with judgment dated 06.05.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapildev Hansda & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026:JHHC:17723 14 being S.L.P (C) No. 38172 of 2016 and considering the case in hand of petitioner no. 1, who was declared eligible for appointment but could not be recommended by JPSC on the ground of non-availability of a seat in locomotor category is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. However, admittedly, 4 post under differently abled category remained vacant due to non-availability of eligible candidate, in this situation, the vacancies reserved for differently abled must be then offered to the next available candidate in order of merit, provided that they have qualified the minimum benchmark. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapildev Hansda & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand & Ors, (supra) considering Section 36 of the Act, 1995 which is pari materia to Section 34 of the Act, 2016, held that if the candidates belonging to sub-categories, namely, candidates with blindness or low vision and hearing impairment are not available, in this event, the posts inter se can be exchanged. 31. Considering the aforesaid position of law held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner no.1 who have qualified the minimum benchmark and have obtained 580 marks which is equal to marks obtained by another candidate of differently abled category, also in view of the stand taken by JPSC with regards to 4 unfilled seats of differently abled categories i.e. 2026:JHHC:17723 15 Blind, Hearing Impairment and Autism, the JPSC should have recommended the name of petitioner no.1 for appointment, considering provisions of statue that posts inter se can be exchanged. Therefore, in the interest of justice, rather than allowing the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of merit list, the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner no.1 for appointment by making necessary recommendation. The respondents would undertake the entire exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 32. However, so far as with respect to candidature of petitioner no. 2 & 3, since they have not been able to qualify for the interview thus, they have not qualified for minimum benchmark for appointment; as such, they cannot be recommended for appointments. 33. Accordingly, this Writ application stands party allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15 /06/2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 19.06.2026