JUDGMENT 1. - The facts as unfolded by this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner, who is an orthopaedically handicapped person after qualifying his Higher Secondary with Science as the subject has been registered with the Employment Exchange, Jaipur vide registration certificate dated 15.7.92 (Annexure-1). In May 1993, respondent No. 4 i.e. the District Education Officer Jhalawar published an advertisement for filling up five post of Lab. Assistants inviting applications from suitable candidates, who could be considered for being appointed on the post of Lab. Assistants. 2. The petitioner also applied for the said post. After screening the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was called for the interview in the office of respondent No. 4, Vide (letter dated 29.5.93) and he was interviewed on 7.6.93 vide (Annexure-2).Thereafter the petitioner was not given appointment on the post of Lab. Assistant but other candidates, who had successfully cleared the interview were appointed. On 25.3.94 the petitioner filed the instant writ petition in this Court and this Court vide it's Orders dated 30.3.94 while admitting the writ petition and issuing notices to the respondents by an interim order of the said date directed the respondents to keep reserved one post of Lab. Assistant in the category of Physically handicapped personnel pending the hearing and disposal of this writ petition. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Rule-4 (5) of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules 76 "for short the Rules 76", which provides inter-alia that : In the event of non-availability of candidates belonging to the particular category of physically handicapped persons or if the nature of vacancies in an office is such that a given category of physically handicapped person cannot he employed, inter-se exchange of post/vacancies shall be permissible. 4. On bare perusal of the above rule it is clear that in the event of non-availability of the candidates, falling in the category of deaf, dumb and blind in terms of the Sub-rule (1) of Rule-4, the inter-se exchange of post vacancies is permissible. 5. 4. On bare perusal of the above rule it is clear that in the event of non-availability of the candidates, falling in the category of deaf, dumb and blind in terms of the Sub-rule (1) of Rule-4, the inter-se exchange of post vacancies is permissible. 5. In this context it will be pertinent o refer to Sub-rule (6) of Rule-4 as well, which provides inter-alia that : In the event of non-availability of suitable candidates for appointment against the vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons ,under sub-rule (1) above, in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved for them in the ubsequent year. Such of the vacancies which remain so unfilled shall be carried forward upto three recruitment years in total and thereafter such reservation would lapse. 6. Perusal of Sub-rule (1) of Rule-4 provides inter-alia that : (1) For appointment to the posts in Subordinate, Ministerial and Class IV Services, 3% of the post (1% for the Blind, 1%n for the Deaf and/or mute and 1% of the Orthopaedically Handicapped persons) shall he reserved : Provided that where a Head of the Department is of the opinion that functions of certain jobs of the posts of the said Services cannot be carried out by the physically handicapped persons indicated in clause (v) of Rule 2 of these rules, in that case the Head of the Department concerned shall indicate such posts to the Director of Social Welfare, Rajasthan for allowing exemption from the operation of the reservation prescribed in sub-rule (1) above for physically handicapped persons within a period of 3 months from the date of the issue of this amendment. Note:-(1) The vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) above, shall be calculated on the basis of-cadre strength existed upto 31.3.1981 of the posts concerned. (2) The vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) above, after 1.4.1981 shall he calculated on the basis of vacancies determined year wise to be filled in by direct recruitment to the post concerned. 7. On close scrutiny and thereafter interpretation of the aforesaid rule reveals that it is always the subjective satisfaction of the. (2) The vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) above, after 1.4.1981 shall he calculated on the basis of vacancies determined year wise to be filled in by direct recruitment to the post concerned. 7. On close scrutiny and thereafter interpretation of the aforesaid rule reveals that it is always the subjective satisfaction of the. head of the Department concerned to consider the candidates falling in the category of physically handicapped persons such as blind, deaf and/or mute and Orthopaedically handicapped persons keeping in view the nature of the job in question and in any case the head of the Department concerned has to indicate the availability of such posts to the Director of Social Welfare, Rajasthan for allowing exemption from the operation of the reservation prescribed in Sub-rule (1) above for physically handicapped persons within a period of three months from the date of the issuance of the amendment, which was substituted by Sub-rule (2) of the Notification dated 31.12.81. As per Sub-rule (6) of Rule-4 it is explicitly clear that it is only in the event of non-availability of suitable candidates for being considered for appointments against the reserved vacancies for physically handicapped persons in accordance with Sub- rule (1) above, that the vacancies so reserved for them have to be filled-in in accordance with the normal procedure and if the vacancies so reserved remain un-filled shall be carried forward upto three successive recruitment years in total and thereafter such reservation would automatically lapse. Hence it is not mandatory or binding on the Head of the Department to give appointments to any of the candidates, falling in the category of physically handicapped persons as referred to above and in May 1993, when these posts were advertised, the period of three years reckoned from the said date had already lapsed in May 1996. Thereafter the petitioner had moved to this Court and this Court vide it's Order dated 30th March, 1994 had directed the respondents to reserve one post pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition as referred to above. The said period of three years, if it is reckoned from 30th March, 1994 would lapse on 30th March, 1997. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant documents placed on the record as well as the position as indicated in the rules as referred to above. 9. The said period of three years, if it is reckoned from 30th March, 1994 would lapse on 30th March, 1997. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant documents placed on the record as well as the position as indicated in the rules as referred to above. 9. Prima-facie, I am of the opinion that though inter-se exchange of posts in the category of physically handicapped persons as referred to above is permissible but it is not binding on the Head of the Department to consider a particular candidate for being given appointment on the post in question since the nature of the job has to he taken into consideration as per the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule-4 as referred to above. However, keeping in view the fact that one post had been reserved by this Court in terms of it's orders dated 30th March 94, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to sympathetically consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lab. Assistant in the State Education Department or on any other suitable post as the respondents may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 10. Respondents are accordingly directed that necessary exercise in this regard shall be done within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this Order. 11. With the above observations the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ petition Disposed of As Per Above Direction. *******