JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is physically handicapped (blind), has sought for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to appoint him as Teacher Gr. III. 2. Case set up by the petitioner is that he passed Secondary School Examination in the year 1988 (1st division) and Hr. Secondary Examination in 1989 with good IInd division. He then passed Sr. Hr. Secondary Examination in the year 1990 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. In pursuance of advertisement dated 10.12.92 issued by the District Education Officer (Primary Education), Bundi, the petitioner applied for appointment as Teacher Gr. III. He was called for interview by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 4.3.93. The petitioner appeared for interview on 19.3.93. At the time of interview he produced photostat copies of his certificates. According to him he was the only candidate for selection from the category of blind persons and he fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for appointment as General Teacher Gr. III as well as Physical Training Instructor Gr. III (Blind). Despite that, he has not been given appointment. Petitioner has pleaded that under the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976, he has a legal right to be appointed on the basis of advertisement Annexure-5 and by not appointing him, respondents have infringed his legal right. 3. Respondents have contested the writ petition by stating that the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility for appointment as specified in advertisement Annexure-5. According to them the petitioner possesses the qualification of Hr. Secondary but he does not have training qualification of S.T.C. or any other qualification declared equivalent by the State Government. Respondents have pleaded that since the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility, he cannot be appointed against the quota of physically handicapped persons. 4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for petitioner is that in terms of the Rules of 1976 the petitioner has a statutory right to be appointed as Teacher Gr. III (Blind) and Physical Training Instructor Gr. III (Blind). He has been denied appointment on a wholly extraneous consideration, namely, that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification. Shri Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in view of the specific provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, respondents cannot insist on the requirement of training qualification. III (Blind). He has been denied appointment on a wholly extraneous consideration, namely, that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification. Shri Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in view of the specific provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, respondents cannot insist on the requirement of training qualification. Shri Dangi argued that in terms of Rule 9(iii), training qualification is liable to be relaxed for a physically handicapped person and even in the cases where training is essential, physically handicapped persons may be required to receive such training within two years of such appointment. Shri Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents, has opposed the writ petition and has argued that the candidates who do not fulfil the minimum conditions of eligibility, as specified in the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, cannot claim consideration for appointment notwithstanding the fact that he/she might be physically handicapped. 5. Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 have been enacted under proviso to Article ,309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 1(3) of these Rules contain a non-obstance clause giving overriding effect to the provisions of these Rules in so far as recruitment as well as conditions of service of physically handicapped persons are concerned. Rule 9 of these Rules provide for concessions to the physically handicapped persons. Rule 1(3) and Rule 9 of 1976 Rules read as under : "1(iii), Notwithstanding any thing contained in any service rules or orders for the time being in force regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the various services or posts in connection with the affairs of the State, physically handicapped person shall be eligible for recruitment and appointment to the ear-marked and reserved posts and in accordance with these rules. 9 - Concessions - Following concessions shall be allowed to blind and deaf for making him eligible for employment mentioned in rule 4:- (i) 5 per cent of marks wherever minimum percentage of marks in any examination is prescribed; (ii) The academic qualifications given in the certificate issued by the recognised Institute meant for the deaf shall be considered at par with those other institution recognised by the Government; (iii) The condition or desirability of training/tests/experience wherever prescribed, shall not apply to the Physically Handicapped for temporary appointment. Where a particular training is essential for appointment to a post the physically handicapped person may be required to receive such training within two years of the appointment." A look at the above quoted provisions clearly show that under Rule 9(iii) condition of training etc. is liable to be relaxed in the cases of physically handicapped persons. By virtue of Rule 1(iii) over-riding effect has been given to the provisions contained in the Rules of 1976. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules 1971 and the schedule appended thereto specify the minimum eligibility conditions for appointment of Teacher Gr. III as Secondary/Hr. Secondary with STC or qualification declared equivalent thereto, it is clear that in the cases of physically handicapped persons such requirement cannot but be held to be directory. The very fact that Rule 9(iii) contemplates acquisition of requisite training by a physically handicapped person after two years of his employment, shows that for physically handicapped persons the training qualification is not necessary to be fulfilled at the time of appointment. The condition of eligibility specified in the schedule appended to the Rules of 1971 can no more be treated as condition precedent for determination of eligibility in cases of physically handicapped persons. Thus, the very premise on which the respondents decided not to appoint the petitioner, even though he is a blind person and falls within the category of physically handicapped person, cannot but be categorised as irrational or arbitrary. On the basis of such arbitrary decision, the respondents have denied appointment to the petitioner and in my opinion their action cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Having been found to be eligible for appointment as Teacher Gr. III (General Teacher)/Physical Training Instructor Gr. III (Blind), the petitioner has acquired a legal right to be appointed as such and the respondents have infringed that legal right of the petitioner without any justification. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as General Teacher Gr. III (Blind)/Physical Training Teacher Gr. III (Blind) within a period of three weeks from today. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as General Teacher Gr. III (Blind)/Physical Training Teacher Gr. III (Blind) within a period of three weeks from today. If the petitioner is not so appointed, he shall be entitled to salary after the expiry of three weeks and the Government shall be free to recover such amount of salary from the pay of the officer who may be found responsible for non-compliance of this order. Costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******