Honble SHETHNA, J–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). The appellant State of Rajasthan and others have challenged in this special appeal the impugned judgment and order dated April 28, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent original petitioner, directing the respondents (Present appellant) to consider the applica- tion of the respondent petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III reserved for physically handicapped person in light of the observations made in the judgment, if he is found suitable. He was ordered to be given appointment within two months from the date of the order. (3). Learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent petitioner and directing the present appellant to consider the application of the respondent petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III, reserved for physically handicapped person. He submitted that initially the respondent petitioner applied in the category of handicapped person, but he was not selected, therefore, he thought it fit to apply in general category. In general category he was not found fit to be appointed, therefore, he was not selected. This aspect of this case has been totally over-looked by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that having given up his claim to be considered for appointment as a handicapped person, lateron, he cannot challenged his non-consideration or non- selection in handicapped category when he was not found fit to be appointed in general category. (4). As against that, learned counsel Shri Lohra for the respondent petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the writ petition and directing the present appellant to consider his case for appoin- tment to the post of Teacher Gr.III reserved for physically handicapped persons, as his case was wrongly discarded by the authority only on the ground that his certifi- cate was prior to three years of the date of advertisement. It was submitted by him that the Doctor concerned, who issued the certificate that he is a handicapped person, refused to give further certificate. It was submitted by him that the Doctor concerned, who issued the certificate that he is a handicapped person, refused to give further certificate. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that once the respondent petitioner has not pressed his claim to be appointed in the category of handicapped person then he cannot challenge his non- selection in the general category and claim that he was wrongly discarded in physically handicapped category only on the ground that the medical certificate was prior to three years. The submission was also made that such condition No.10 in the adver- tisement is unconstitutional, and ultra vires to the Rules itself. We will not go into this question, as we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had not considered the aspect that having waived his right to be considered and appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III in handicapped category, then he cannot subsequently challenge the same particularly when he failed to qualify in general category. (5). In view of the above discussion, this special appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent petitioner stands dismissed.