JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, a prayer has been made that the petitioner may be appointed on the post of Headmistress in Government Secondary/ Higher Secondary School, being a handicapped lady. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Jain, learned counsel, that the petitioner is a handicapped person, as is evident from Ex.l. She is working as Assistant Teacher. In response to an advertisement, published in Rajasthan Patrika dated July 31, 1980, for appointment of Headmaster/Headmistress, she made an application. There were fifty seven seats for Headmistress and one seat was reserved for handicapped Headmistress. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, as per amended Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (for brevity, 'the Rules, 1976'), there is 3% reservation for handicapped per- sons. Therefore, instead of one seat, there should have been reservation of 3%, which comes to two seats. It is also submitted that this Rule is applicable also to State Services. In this respect, reliance has been placed on Suraj Prakash Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 WLN (page missing) . 3. It is submitted by Mr. M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, that the authority of Suraj Prakash Chaturvedi's case (supra), is not applicable to the present petition, since it was given while the Rules, 1976 had not been amended. Rules have been now amended in 1981 as mentioned by the petitioner herself. Thereafter, it is clearly mentioned in Rule 4 that this reservation of handicapped persons will apply only to subordinate ministerial class IV servants. Thus, State services have been kept outside the scope of reservation of handicapped persons. It is pointed that 3% reservation has been kept; 1% for blind, further 1% for deaf and 1% for orthopedically handicapped persons. It is submitted by Mr. Jain, learned counsel, that the petitioner belongs to orthopedically handicapped category. It is pointed out that as per paras 8 and 9 of the return, the post of Headmistress of Secondary School belongs to the State Services. It is further pointed out that no rejoinder had been filed to this plea and factual position explained by the respondents. 4. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. It is clear from bare reading of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1976 that these Rules are not applicable to the State Services. It is further pointed out that no rejoinder had been filed to this plea and factual position explained by the respondents. 4. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. It is clear from bare reading of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1976 that these Rules are not applicable to the State Services. It has been clearly mentioned by the respondents in the return that this post is of the cadre of State Services. Therefore, these Rules of 1976 are not applicable to the State Services. The petitioner, therefore, cannot derive any benefit from the authority of Suraj Prakash Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan (supra). It may be pointed out that as mentioned in para 9 of the return, one Mrs. Damyanti Parmar, who was also orthopaedically handicapped lady, has been already selected for the post of Headmistress, since she was more meritorious than the petitioner.. Thus, taking the contention raised by the petitioner from any angle, it can be said that there is no merit in the writ petition. The lady, who was belonging to orthopaedically handicapped category, has been selected for the post of Headmistress, since she was more meritorious and Rules, 1976 do not apply to the cadre of State Services, to which the post of Head-master/ Headmistress belonged. 5. I, therefore, do not find any force in this writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******