BINOD KUMAR ROY, D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) THE appellants assail validity of the judgment and order dated 25th September. 1997 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5649 of 1994 filed by the respondent directing appellant No. 1 to offer an appointment to him against class III post which may be existing on the day of the Judgment or if no vacancy is in existence, then to appoint him against the very next vacancy which may occur in his judgeship in near future. The Impugned judgment being short is being reproduced : "heard Sri Y. S. Bohra. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Singh, learned standing counsel. A recruitment test was held in the year 1992 for selecting candidates for the post of class III employees in Bulandshahr Judgeship. The petitioner was also one of the applicants. Unfortunately, the petitioner became blind though he was earlier a practicing lawyer. The case of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a reservation quota of 2% in favour of the physically handicapped persons, which includes three types of persons, namely, blind, deaf and dumb and physically handicapped. The quota of each of the aforesaid categories comes to 67% totaling 2%. in the recruitment under challenge, no physically handicapped person appeared except the petitioner, who was only physically handicapped candidate. The order dated 28. 9. 1993 contained in Annexure-4 passed by the District Judge. Bulandshahr indicates that he was not aware of the fact that the petitioner is blind person, applied in the aforesaid test. He himself has mentioned in his order that no person, who is blind, has applied for the post and if any person being blind has applied, his case shall be considered separately. In spite of this observation by the learned District Judge in his order, whereby the result of the recruitment was declared, no post was kept vacant for accommodating the petitioner, a blind person. Learned standing counsel made a reference to the averment made in para 9 of the counter-affidavit, to canvass the point that the G. O, dated 26. 8. 1993. Annexure-1 was not in the knowledge of the appointing authority, at the relevant time. Learned standing counsel made a reference to the averment made in para 9 of the counter-affidavit, to canvass the point that the G. O, dated 26. 8. 1993. Annexure-1 was not in the knowledge of the appointing authority, at the relevant time. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has made out an iron-cast case for being appointed in one of the posts in class III in the Bulandshahr judgeship, under the quota of physically handicapped persons. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the District Judge, Bulandshahr to offer an appointment to the petitioner against class III post which may be existing today. If no vacancy is in existence at the moment the petitioner shall be appointed against the very next vacancy which may occur in the judgeship in the near future. " ( 2 ) THE respondent had filed the aforementioned writ petition 2 praying (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the order dated 21st January. 1994 passed by appellant No. 1 rejecting his representation and quash the same, and (ii) to command the appellants to consider him pursuant to 1992 examination for appointment against a class III post in reserved category in the District Court of Bulandshahr. ( 3 ) THE pleadings as set forth in the writ proceedings : 3. 1. For grant of the aforementioned two reliefs, the respondent had asserted as follows.--In the year 1992 an advertisement was made for filling 30 vacant posts of class III in the District Court, bulandshahr and applications were invited by the appellant No. 1 ; he was earlier a practicing advocate but unfortunately in an accident completely lost his eye sight and thereby became totally blind ; he having requisite qualification for the said post applied by submitting his application ; he was issued an Admit Card for the written examination showing his Roll No. 1657 ; he appeared in the written examination and in which he did well and being the sole blind candidate was hopeful for his selection : G. O. dated 26. 8. 1993 as contained in Annexure-1 was issued giving reservation to candidates under the category of handicapped persons; the appellants issued a list of 30 selected candidates on 28. 9. 8. 1993 as contained in Annexure-1 was issued giving reservation to candidates under the category of handicapped persons; the appellants issued a list of 30 selected candidates on 28. 9. 1993 as contained in Annexure-4 without considering his candidature of which he came to know on 12th January. 1994; he made a representation on 15. 1. 1994 to the appellant No. 1, as contained in Annexure-5, stating all facts praying for considering his case for appointment, but without giving any opportunity of hearing the appellant No. 1 rejected his representation by order dated 21st January, 1994 ; he applied for a copy of the aforesaid order, but it was refused saying that it was an administrative order certified copy of which could not be given; he then requested the concerned clerk to show the order, but his request was turned down ; the allegation that he was unsuccessful is wholly incorrect and baseless; he prays for summoning his answer book and to see as to whether he was successful or not ; the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice ; even though he had qualified for appointment, being within the category of handicapped person and was entitled to be considered, the refusal to consider his candidature Is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner has brought on the record a copy of the information. Rules and Directions made in regard to the test as Annexure-2, a copy of the Admit card is Annexure-3. 3. 2. The appellants in their counter-affidavit had stated, inter alia, that the U. P. Ministerial rules. The petitioner has brought on the record a copy of the information. Rules and Directions made in regard to the test as Annexure-2, a copy of the Admit card is Annexure-3. 3. 2. The appellants in their counter-affidavit had stated, inter alia, that the U. P. Ministerial rules. 1947 provided intermediate as a minimum qualification for the candidates of class III establishment and do not provide for a preference to a person who is highly and additionally qualified ; the petitioner may well practice in law courts with the help of a Junior and continue to work as an advocate ; even otherwise in accordance with the Government Order of 1989, the quota of handicapped persons was completely filled up and there is no more any vacancy against which an additional handicapped person, particularly a blind, can be appointed in the judgeship ; the Government Order of 1989 provide reservation for those persons who were blind since birth whereas the Government Order of 1993 provides reservation for those who became blind later on which was not available in the Judgeship at the time of the recruitment process or at the time of declaration of the result on 28. 9. 1993 which was received on 11. 4. 1994: there is no seat or post in class III clerical staff on which the services of a blind person may be utilised; every seat and post requires an incumbent to read and write, whether it be a post of Reader. Ahalmad. Record keeper, Nazir. 9. 1993 which was received on 11. 4. 1994: there is no seat or post in class III clerical staff on which the services of a blind person may be utilised; every seat and post requires an incumbent to read and write, whether it be a post of Reader. Ahalmad. Record keeper, Nazir. Deputy Nazir, Cashier or Deputy Cashier and so on ; there Is no provision for providing a helper to a blind person, if employed : he was not selected as he could not be successful in the competitive written examination ; had there been any vacancy in the cadre of knitting chairs or any other unskilled or partially skilled and unskilled Job of class IV he could have been given employment : In his representation he did not enclose a copy of the 1993 government Order about which he too had no knowledge which was rejected for the aforesaid reasons after consideration by the then District Judge whose order is neither illegal nor arbitrary or violative of any principle of natural justice ; as far as made known from the staff of the judgeship the order was passed in his presence and within his hearing, who was also given an opportunity of hearing; and that he is not entitled to any relief. 3. 3. The respondent had filed a rejoinder stating, inter alia, that he is claiming his appointment in accordance with law against the post reserved for the handicapped persons and not with reference to the factum of being highly qualified ; details of number of vacancies reserved and their total number of appointees have not been given mala fide ; the Government Order of 1993 which was applicable as it was made well before the final selection and it is wholly incorrect to say that It was received on 11. 4. 1994, though its belated receipt could not take away his right for being considered; it is wholly incorrect to say that the Government Order dated 4. 8. 4. 1994, though its belated receipt could not take away his right for being considered; it is wholly incorrect to say that the Government Order dated 4. 8. 1989, appending its copy as Annexure-R. A.-1, provided reservation for only those persons who are blind since birth ; it is wholly incorrect to say that there is no necessity of services of blind persons ; it is denied that the order was passed in his presence ; it is wholly incorrect to say that there are no job suitable for him as it is contrary to the advertisement and the Government Order. 3. 4. Annexure-4 to the writ petition contains the list of successful 30 candidates stating that the quota for the handicapped persons stands filled up and there is no blind employee and if there is any blind employee amongst the candidates an information be furnished by the office so that an order be passed separately after looking at his qualification. The Government Orders were also brought on the record by the respondent. ( 4 ) THE writ petition came up for consideration before a learned single Judge who, as already stated earlier, disposed of the writ petition with the directions. ( 5 ) THE Submissions : 5. 1. Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, learned special counsel of the Court appearing on behalf of the appellants, contended as follows : (i) Since the writ petitioner-respondent, who had not even qualified in the written examination, is blind was thus not in a position to be appointed as a class III employee in terms of G. O, of 20th May. 1978 which stands printed at pages 754 to 756 of S. N. Srivastavas Manual of government Orders 14th Edition, 1997, published by Hind Publishing House. Allahabad (G. O. of 1989 being a mistake) providing quota for physically handicapped persons which was already filled up, besides paragraph 4 of that G. O. clarifies that the physical handicappedness should not be such which can obstruct in the duties of the concerned service and, accordingly, if any post or service is such in which the eyes are specially required for which a blind person cannot get any reservation. The learned Judge had committed an apparent error of law in thinking that the government Order dated 26th August, 1993 (contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was retrospective in nature and applicable to 1992 recruitment, which was not even attached by the respondent with his representation dated 21. 4. 1994 in which he had not even asserted that he was successful in the examination and in holding that he has made an iron-cast case for being appointed on one of the posts of physically handicapped person. He also contended, with reference to N. T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, AIR 1990 SC 1233 , that the amended Government Order or Rules are not retrospective in nature, selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and Orders which were in force on the date of the advertisement. (ii) The specific prayers made by the respondent were to call for the order dated 21. 1. 1994 passed by appellant No. 1 rejecting his representation and quash the same and direct the appellants to consider his case for appointment on class III post in the reserved category pursuant to 1992 examination but the learned Judge has committed yet another error in directing the appellants to offer appointment against class III post as no such mandamus can be issued straightaway. At best a direction could have been Issued to reconsider his claim in accordance with law. (iii) The express defence taken in the counter-affidavit more so even in paragraph 9 of it has also nowhere been stated and/or considered in the impugned judgment. Paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit contains such facts which, if considered, disentitled the respondent to have any relief from this Court yet the writ petition was allowed though using the expression "disposed of". 5. 2. Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, contended as follows : (i) 1993 Government Order was clarificatory in nature, which came into existence before the final selection process and was applicable. (ii) It was correctly held by the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner had made out an iron-cast case. He also placed reliance on certain observations made by (i) a Division Bench of our Court in Amrendra Pratap Singh and others v. State of U. P. . (ii) It was correctly held by the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner had made out an iron-cast case. He also placed reliance on certain observations made by (i) a Division Bench of our Court in Amrendra Pratap Singh and others v. State of U. P. . (1993) 3 UPLBEC 2061, (ii)the Apex Court in Jai Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1993 SC 1906 and (iii) in National federation of Blinds, U. P. Branch and another v. State of U. P. and others, 2001 (1) ARC 278. He defended the Judgment by taking up a stand that no error of fact or of law was committed by the learned single Judge. (iii) The answer book of the respondent be summoned to verily the fact whether he was successful or not. (iv) Even assuming that the judgment is vitiated for the reasons canvassed by Mr. Agarwal having regard to the avowed object for which the State Government has enacted the Uttar pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped. Dependents of Freedom fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, and the observations made in the three decisions, equity demands that the judgment of the learned single Judge be not set aside and at least a direction be made to appoint him even against a class IV post. 5. 3. Sri Agrawal in reply, contended that there is no merit in the submissions of Mr. Shukla. There Is no post vacant even against class IV for a blind person and the attempt made to provide a Job of receptionist, even without such a sanctioned post, has proved futile as even that job could not be performed by the respondent and salary was paid to him even though he had not worked which has caused grouse to other employees of the judgeship. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the materials on the record and the submissions made at the Bar, following questions crop up for our consideration : (i) Whether in view , of the apparent fact that the quota meant for physically handicapped persons already stood filled up as stated in Annexure-4 the learned single Judge was justified in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent against a class III post on the date of his judgment or against a post which may fall vacant in future? (ii) Whether the learned single Judge was justified in directing the respondents to make appointment of the respondent straightaway even though his prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the order rejecting his representation and directing the appellants to consider his case for appointment in view of the provisions made by 1993 Government Order?, and whether the said Government Order is retrospective in its application? (iii) Whether the learned single Judge was justified in not stating even in summary form as to what was the precise case of the appellants set up in their counter? (iv) Whether we should summon the answer-books to find out that the respondent was successful in the examination? (v) Whether we should not set aside the judgment under appeal on the ground of equity. (vi) Whether in any view to the matter we should direct the appellants to appoint the respondent even against a class IV post. ( 7 ) OUR findings: 7. 1. The fact that the reserved quota meant for physically handicapped persons had stood filled up in relation to 1992 recruitment process of class III employees was not disputed before us. in his representation Annexure-5, the respondent had not alleged that the said quota was not filled up. 7. 2. We have perused the 1993 Government Orders. We are not persuaded to hold that this 1993 government Order is retrospective in character. Paragraph 2 of this Government Order categorically states that in view of the request made by the National Blind Association, Uttar pradesh. Lucknow to the Government for making a separate reservation for the blind persons the government has decided to give equal quota for (i) Blind persons, (ii) Deaf persons, and (iii)Physically handicapped persons out of 2 per cent collective quota. It has not been stated in it, either expressly or even impliedly, that this Government Order will apply in relation to those recruitment processes which had commenced earlier but not completed. The observations, relied upon by Sri Shukla, were made after considering the language of the relevant Government orders and facts discussed therein. Here the 1993 Government Order is of no help to the respondent. The argument of Mr. Shukla based on the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 is also devoid of substance for the simple reason that under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act aforementioned, it had come into force on December 11. Here the 1993 Government Order is of no help to the respondent. The argument of Mr. Shukla based on the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1993 is also devoid of substance for the simple reason that under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act aforementioned, it had come into force on December 11. 1993 whereas the selection was made on 28. 9. 1993. True it is that 1989 Government Order is not applicable we find substance in the contention of Mr. Agarwal in regard to 1978 Government Order and accept them. The observation relied upon by Mr. Shukla are of no help to the respondent. From the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that there was a case for blindness from birth and yet the appointment was made earlier which was put under challenge by a counsel through a Public interest Litigation filed in the Supreme Court whereas here the very genesis to command the appellants to offer appointment to the respondent and appoint him is under challenge. 7. 3. We have had also perused the different provisions of the Subordinate Civil Courts ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. Rule 2 (c) of the Rules reads as follows : " (c) "ministerial Establishment" means the staff of the subordinate civil courts consisting of ministerial servants as defined in Fundamental Rule 9 (17), Financial Hand Book, Volume 11, part II. " fundamental Rule 9 (17), Financial Handbook Volume II, Part II reads as follows : " (17) Ministerial servant means Government servants of a subordinate service whose duties are entirely clerical and any other class of Government servant specially defined as such by general or special order of the Government. " rule 6 (2) of the Rules reads as follows : "subject Marks Written (i) Simple drafting (In Hindi) 50 (ii) Essay and Precis Writing 50 (In Hindi) (iii) Simple Drafting and Precis 50 Writing- (In English) (iv) General Knowledge 50 Optional (i) Typewriting in english 50 and Hindi (ii) Shorthand in Hindi and 50" English rule 8 of the Rules reads as follows : "8. Physical Fitness.--No person shall be appointed to the ministerial establishment unless he is in good mental and bodily health and free from physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. Physical Fitness.--No person shall be appointed to the ministerial establishment unless he is in good mental and bodily health and free from physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. Before a person is substan-tively appointed to any permanent post, he shall be required to produce and medical certificate of health as required by Subsidiary rules contained in Chapter III of the United Provinces Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part II to iv. We have also gone through Annexure-2 the terms and conditions pertaining to the examination. It has been rightly stated in the counter-affidavit that a ministerial staff, that is to say a class III employee of the Judgeship is required not only to read but to write their office notes, etc. The recruitment was required to be made as per the terms of the advertisement and the rules as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in N. T. Bevin Kattis case relied upon by Sri Agrawal, besides the Constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Any deviation from it was impermissible. Thus, we find substance in the defence taken by the appellants in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner could not have been appointed against a class III post. 7. 4. The question as to whether the respondent was successful in the examination asserted before us was not pressed by him before the learned single Judge which is clear from the Judgment. No request was made before the learned single Judge for summoning his answer-book to find out that in fact, as claimed by him, he was successful in the written examination. Such was not even his case in his representation. Though option being blind the writ petitioner could not have appeared in the typewriting test as contemplated in Annexure-2. There is a presumption of correctness and regularity of the official acts. It is, thus, now too late for the respondent to make a prayer for summoning the examination copies. ( 8 ) ARTICLE 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens for consideration for appointment against a public post. Undisputedly the class III post in the judgeship of Bulandshahr was/is a public post. No mandamus should be issued to deprive others of a public appointment vis-a-vis the respondent. ( 8 ) ARTICLE 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens for consideration for appointment against a public post. Undisputedly the class III post in the judgeship of Bulandshahr was/is a public post. No mandamus should be issued to deprive others of a public appointment vis-a-vis the respondent. ( 9 ) AS an appeal lies on facts and in law both against a judgment of a learned single Judge, it was expected that the defence of the appellants is mentioned in the judgment even in a summary form. Paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit contained the defence of the appellant that in the judgeship there is no post on which services of any blind person could be utilised and the post requires of writing office notes, etc. and there is no provision for providing helper to any blind employees apart from the fact that G. O, of 1993 was not received. We do not wish to make any further comment in this regard. ( 10 ) WE are satisfied that the learned single Judge has exceeded his Jurisdiction in issuing straightaway mandamus commanding the appellants to appoint the respondent against a class III post. Even assuming that he had some case to be considered by the appellants, the only course available for the learned single Judge was to remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. See State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mymuddin. AIR 1987 SC 1889 . ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the humanistic aspect, namely, that the petitioner who was a practicing lawyer at Bulandshahr and had unfortunately become blind in a shoot out incident and instead of continuing his professional activities desires to be appointed even against a class IV post as urged by Mr. Shukla, keeping in mind the apparent fact that some lawyers, though blind, had excelled in the legal profession coupled with the fact that we could not find such a post for him. we are not persuaded to invoke equity in favour of the respondent hoping that the respondent will return to the noble legal profession and try to excel in it. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we answer all the questions against the respondent and set aside the Judgment under appeal. we are not persuaded to invoke equity in favour of the respondent hoping that the respondent will return to the noble legal profession and try to excel in it. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we answer all the questions against the respondent and set aside the Judgment under appeal. ( 13 ) THIS special appeal is allowed, but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances we leave the parties to bear their own cost throughout.