Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner is an Orthopaedically handicapped person as Per Ex.1. He is suffering from Kypnosis (deformed chest buldging out) as per certificate issued by Rehabilitation Research Centre, SMS Medical College Hospital, Jaipur. The Rehabilitation Research Centre (here-in-after referred to RRC) has been established by the Medical College exclusively for handicapped persons. The centre is headed by the Head of Department of Orthopaedic Department and is entitled to issue certificates. The petitioner is a permanent visitor and he had been issued a permanent number. He is a permanent disabled. The petitioner also belongs to OBC. (2). Vide advertisement dated 24..1996, 103 vacancies of Gram Sevak Paden Sachiv were to be filled up by direct recruitment vide Ex.4. The petitioner was one of the candidate for the said post. He was allowed to take written examination and was issued an admission card as well with Roll No. 5325 vide Ex.5. He was declared successful on the merit list i.e. the general merit list vide Ex.6 i.e. he had passed the test. His merit position was 219. (3). On the equerry being made,the petitioner was informed that the appointments have already been made and, therefore, he cannot be considered for appointment. The petitioner made representations. (4). The petitioner was informed vide Ex.9 on 23.12.1998 that (i) his disability certificate cannot be considered for the reason that it is not signed by Orthopaedician of the Department; (ii) the certificate is not filled up in the form No. 4, if the disability certificate is dated 18.9.1984 which is prior to three years period. The petitioner vide Ex.10 represented against Annex.9 stating therein that the petitioner is in possession of all the certificates and that the certificate has been issued by the RRC, the centre meant only for Orthopaedically handicapped persons and has been signed by a doctor who is Orthopaedician and Head of Department. The petitioner had attached the certificate issued by the Department as was required under Rule 2(C) of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976. It was also the case of the petitioner that all these certificates were also available with the employment exchange and he was sent by the Employment Exchange, therefore, he was entitled to be considered against such quota of reservation for handicapped persons. It was also the case of the petitioner that all these certificates were also available with the employment exchange and he was sent by the Employment Exchange, therefore, he was entitled to be considered against such quota of reservation for handicapped persons. The petitioner was again informed on 4.3.1999 (Ex.-12) that his case cannot be considered i.e. in addition to Ex.-9, he was informed vide Ex.12 that the decision of Annex.9 remains intact. (5). The petitioner submits that as per Rules of 1976, 3% posts are reserved for physically handicapped persons; one for blind, one for deaf and/or mute and one for Orthopaedically handicapped persons. The petitioner falls under the third category, it is the case of the petitioner that he could not be considered on general category; he should have been listed in the reserved list in the separate list, Rule 1(ii) and 4(1)(i) are reproduced as under:- `1(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in any service rules of orders for the time being in force regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the various services or post in connection with the affairs of the State, physically handicapped person shall be eligible for recruitment and appointment to the earmarked and reserved posts in accordance with these rules. `4(1)(i) For appointment to post in subordinate Ministerial and Class IV Services, 3% of the posts (1% for the Blind, 1% for the Deaf and/or Mute and 1% for the Orthopaedically handicapped persons) shall be reserved. (6). The advertisement 1.9.1996 provided for reservations but some how the reservation for handicapped persons had been omitted in the advertisement even though in the later advertisement of 1999 in relation to handicappeds had been mentioned. The above- said rules of 1976 are statutory rules and do provide 3% reservation. (7). (6). The advertisement 1.9.1996 provided for reservations but some how the reservation for handicapped persons had been omitted in the advertisement even though in the later advertisement of 1999 in relation to handicappeds had been mentioned. The above- said rules of 1976 are statutory rules and do provide 3% reservation. (7). Rule 7 of the rules provides that certificate of the physically handicapped shall be obtained from the Medical officer not below the rank of a Reader in the concerned speciality where there is a Medical college; and a Junior Specialist in the concerned speciality of Chief Medical & Health Officer at places where there is no Medical College, which is reproduced as under:- `(1) A certificate of the physically handicapped shall be obtained from the Medical Officer not below the rank of; (i) A reader in the concerned speciality where there is a Medical College; (ii) A junior Specialist in the concerned speciality or Chief Medical & Health Officer at place where there is not Medical College. It is not denied that the petitioner is a handicapped person. Nowhere in the advertisement, it was so mentioned that the medical disability certificate is to be issued on some prescribed form. The certificate in question was issued by the SMS Medical College by the rank of Professor/Reader of the RRC. (8). Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The objection being taken is that the medical certificate is not in proforma and that it has not been issued by the department of Orthopaedics. The physically handicapped disease of the petitioner of the deformed chest is a permanent disease. (9). The fact remains that after submission of the required form, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and also was interviewed. (10). On the original file as reproduced by he respondent, there are two certificates of disability dated 18.9.1984 and 18.7.1987. The certificates appearing at pages 70 and 71 are reproduced as under:- 1. REHABILITATION RESEARCH CENTRE, SMS MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, JAIPUR No. 84619/RRC/OPC/OPD/83 dated 18.9.84 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Mr. Harun Mohd. S/o Abdul Kayum resident of Jaipur is suffering from Kypnosis. He comes under the category of Orthopaedically handicapped person. The identification mark of the patient is Scar Rt. side Neck. sd signature of the patient sd Professor/Reader Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Research Centre, SMS Hospital Campus, Jaipur. 2. Harun Mohd. S/o Abdul Kayum resident of Jaipur is suffering from Kypnosis. He comes under the category of Orthopaedically handicapped person. The identification mark of the patient is Scar Rt. side Neck. sd signature of the patient sd Professor/Reader Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Research Centre, SMS Hospital Campus, Jaipur. 2. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR REHABILITATION RESEARCH CENTRE, JAIPUR DISABILITY CERTIFICATE FOR EMPLOYMENT (Under rule 7 of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rule, 1976) Rehab.No. 84619 Certificate No. 4182 dated 18.2.87 This is to certify that Mr. Harun Mohd. S/o Abdul Kayum resident of Jaipur identification mark Scar left eye brow has been examined by the undersigned as per the examination chart prescribed for the purpose. On the basis of the said examination this is certified that Shri Harun Mohd, is having the following impairment and as such he is a orthopaedically handicapped as defined in clause (C) of sub- rule (V) of rule 2 of the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1975 and is fit case to the registered in Special Employment Exchange/Employment Exchange as a Physically Handicapped person for employment purposes. Physical impairment including cause of handicapped thumb impression or Signatures of the person Obtaining the certificates. Kypnosis _____________ Signed (Name of Doctor)______ Seal Date of Examination Three objections have been taken. On objection is in regard to the fact that the certificate is not on the form No. IV. Form No. IV as prescribed is as under:- ``FORM-IV CERTIFICATE (Under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976). Certificate No._______________ Date _______________ Office of the _____________________ This is to certify that Shri/Smt./Kum ............................ S/o, D/o, W/o..................................... Age .............Sex........... identification make ......... has been examination chart prescribed for the purpose. On the basis of the said examination this is certified that Shri/Smt/Kum ............... is having the following impairment and as such he/she is a orthopaedically handicapped and comes under the category of the physically handicapped as defined in clause (C) of the sub-rule (v) of rule 2 of the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 and is a fit case to be registered in Special Employment Exchange/Employment Exchange as a Physically Handicapped person for employment purposes. Physical impairment including cause of handicap. Thumb impression of signatures of the person obtaining the certificate ______________ ______________ ______________ Signed (name of doctor) Seal (11). Physical impairment including cause of handicap. Thumb impression of signatures of the person obtaining the certificate ______________ ______________ ______________ Signed (name of doctor) Seal (11). From the bare reading of the format of Form No. IV, there is no substantial difference so far the material particulars are concerned in the certificate submitted by the petitioner and as mentioned in the PW from A. However, the other objection taken for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is that the certificate does not bear the signatures of the Head of Department of Orthopaedics. The certificate appearing at page 71 does contain the insertion that the form is being issued under Rule 70 of the Rules of 1976 and that it has been issued by the Directory, Rehabilitation Research Centre of SMS Medical College Hospital, Jaipur. SMS Medical College has established a separate exclusive wing for the handicapped persons and incharge of the department is a Professor/Reader. The certificate has been issued by him. If there was any doubt, the officer concerned instead of rejecting the form straight way ought to have asked the petitioner to comply with the formalities or clarified the matter. Approach of the officer was too hypertechnical. Instead of furthering the aims of reservation to handicapped persons who do need the sympathy and care of the society, the authority while informing him vide Ex. 9 and 12 had straight away rejected his candidature; the third objection raised by the authority has no meaning. The disease is a permanent disease in its nature. It will not make any difference whether a current certificate is issued of the certificate is issued with is of any year. However, in this respect also the respondent ought to have sought the clarification if at all there was any doubt which was not been done in the present case. It my opinion, the respondent has not cared to go deep in the matter before rejecting the application specially when he was allowed to appear in the written test and also in the interview. One vacancy reserved for such type of handicapped persons, seems to have been filed up from a general candidate. No selection list for handicapped persons has been prepared. The advertisement did not mention as to what type of certificates are to be produced by the handicapped persons. One vacancy reserved for such type of handicapped persons, seems to have been filed up from a general candidate. No selection list for handicapped persons has been prepared. The advertisement did not mention as to what type of certificates are to be produced by the handicapped persons. It would have been better that in the advertisement itself insertion would have been given about the details or particulars or the format which was required by the handicapped persons. For the failure of the respondent to specify the details in the advertisement, the petitioner cannot be blamed and allowed to suffer, but even otherwise, the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement as was required and non-consideration of the petitioner against the vacancy reserved for handicaps was illegal. (12). Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted that all the vacancies have been filled up and, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered now. The petitioner was deprived of his right of consideration. Three vacancies were reserved for handicapped category. The petitioner has a right to say that the vacancy reserved for handicapped quota could not have been diverted to general quota after rejecting the application of the petitioner on very flimsy grounds. (13). In the case of Purushottam vs. Chairman (M.S.E.B. and Another (1), it was held hat the duly selected candidate could not be denied appointment on the pretext that panels term had expired and post has been filed up by someone else. It was the case of a candidate who belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The Board was doubting his status as ST candidate. The plea of the Board, on approaching the High Court by the candidate was accepted to the affect that the panel had already expired and someone else had been appointed and there was no vacancy, but the Apex Court had reversed the judgment of the High Court observing that the right of the candidate have been taken away illegally and the Board was directed to appoint the appellant from prospective effect. It was observed as under: ``The right of the appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected cannot be taken away on the pretext that the said panel has in the meantime expired and the post has already been filled up by somebody else. It was observed as under: ``The right of the appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected cannot be taken away on the pretext that the said panel has in the meantime expired and the post has already been filled up by somebody else. Usurpation of he post by somebody else is not no accused of any defect on the part of the appellant, but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of the matter, the appellants right to the appointed to the post has been illegally taken away by the employer. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and judgment of the High Court and direct the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to appoint the appellant to the post for which he was duly selected within two months from today. We made it clear that appointment would be prospective in nature. (14). In the case of Manjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab & Other (2), in the case of reservation for physically handicapped persons, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the form of certificate cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the claim. The candidate was not considered for appointment because of the form of certificate. It was held that the particulars disability of the appellant was sufficient to classify the candidate as physically handicapped person and, therefore, her claim had to be considered. The from of certificate could not be a ground for non-consideration. The judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court was reversed. It was observed as under:- `His objection appears to have been to the form of the certificate rather than to the substance of it. We do not think that there was any jurisdiction for not appointing the appellant to the post of Social Studies Mistress in the vacancy reserved for physically handicapped persons. A direction will therefore issue to respondents to consider the claim of the appellant to the post of Social Studies Mistress on the basis that she is a physically handicapped person and appoint her to that post if she is otherwise qualified. The appellant is entitled to her costs. (15). A direction will therefore issue to respondents to consider the claim of the appellant to the post of Social Studies Mistress on the basis that she is a physically handicapped person and appoint her to that post if she is otherwise qualified. The appellant is entitled to her costs. (15). This court in the case of Asha Ram vs. R.P.S.C. (3), had held that the certificate under the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 cannot be faulted merely because it has not reproduced definition of orthopaedically handicapped or that the form cannot be allowed to overrule substance in beneficial legislature and the order cancelling candidature of petitioner was quashed. The case of Asha Ram is in all force on the facts as in the present case. The Division Bench had setaside the cancellation of candidature of the candidate with a direction to give appointment if the candidate was found fit otherwise. (16). In the case of Lalit Kumar vs. Life Insurance Corpn. & Anor. (4), this court had held that under the Rules of 1976 the respondent was bound to prepare a list of merit of handicapped persons and to appoint the handicapped persons as per reservation. (17). This court in Lalchand Korani vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (5, had held that the refusal to consider the case of the handicapped category on the ground that the certificate, he possessed was of three years prior to the application had no nexus. It was observed as under:- `There is no provision in the Rules that the certificate to be furnished by a physically handicapped person should be of a particular duration. Mr. Singhvi could not explain as to on what basis the condition of 3 years was mentioned in the notification. In the absence of a Rule direction the duration of the certificate, the condition of 3 years mentioned in the advertisement cannot be given effect. It is relevant to state that the petitioner tried to get renewal of the certificate but the medical officer who had examined him in 1992, declined to issue renewal certificate or fresh certificate. As such, it was not possible for the petitioner to such, it was not possible for the petitioner to have obtained fresh certificate certifying that he was orthopaedically handicapped person. As such, it was not possible for the petitioner to such, it was not possible for the petitioner to have obtained fresh certificate certifying that he was orthopaedically handicapped person. `These provision indicate that a physically handicapped person is not even required to undergo medical examination which is a condition precedent for the other persons while entering into Govt. service. The provision has been made obviously on the basis that the handicapped person had already obtained a certificate that he was a physically handicapped person. It is not clear on what basis the respondents have asked the petitioner to furnish certificate of a period of less than 3 years. (18). In view of the authoritative judgment of this court, the format of application is only directory and in no case the application could have been rejected on the ground that it was not on form IV. The officers concerned are not required to reject the genuine cases only on the ground of technicality and they are to go deep to see the substance of disability. In my opinion, it is a case where the respondents had utterly failed to do their duties to consider the case of the handicapped person by rejecting his application when he had qualified the examination otherwise. It is also not understandable as to why the petitioner was asked to appear in he examination and even issued the roll number when ultimately he was to be rejected on the technical ground of so called faulty medical certificate. The petitioner had a right to be considered and his rejection cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (20). For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed with costs with a direction to the respondent to prepare a list of the handicapped persons who have qualified and if the petitioner falls on merit list of handicapped persons, the respondent shall officer appointment of the post in question. The exercise shall be completed within a period of two months positively. Rs. 2000/- is assessed as costs.