Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 1.8.2003 in O.P.No.12948 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the Original Petition. 2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 22.7.2000 the first respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications for Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealerships at Kottiyam in Kollam District and Kadambanadu in Pathanamthitta District. The outlet at Kottiyam was reserved for physically handicapped persons. Being a congenitally physically handicapped person with a permanent disability of more than 45%, the petitioner submitted an application for the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealership at Kottiyam. He was called for the interview conducted by the third respondent Dealer Selection Board. According to the petitioner, after the selection, a rank list was published including the 4th respondent Mohammed Shanni as No.1 and the petitioner as No.2. The 4th respondent had no congenital disability. He became physically handicapped due to a motor accident in 1994. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ex.P2 representation dated 13.12.2001 before respondents 2 and 3 pointing out that congenitally handicapped persons ought to be given preference over accidentally handicapped. The third respondent sent Ext.P3 letter to the petitioner advising him to appear before the third respondent on 8.1.2002 with all evidence in support of his allegation against the selection of candidates. The petitioner appeared before the third respondent and submitted a copy of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P.(M.V.) No.1963 of 1994 to prove that the 4th respondent had become handicapped in a motor accident which took place on 27.6.1994, that because of the accident the right leg of the 4th respondent had to be amputated and that he was awarded as compensation an amount of Rs.5,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till the date of recovery. The 4th respondent submitted Ext.P5 objection to the representation of the petitioner. In Ext.P5 the 4th respondent disputed the claim of the petitioner that a congenitally handicapped person is entitled to preference over persons who became physically handicapped due to other causes. The 4th respondent submitted Ext.P5 objection to the representation of the petitioner. In Ext.P5 the 4th respondent disputed the claim of the petitioner that a congenitally handicapped person is entitled to preference over persons who became physically handicapped due to other causes. Alleging that the third respondent was delaying the decision on the petitioner’s representation he filed the Original Petition praying for a direction to the respondents to allot the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet to the petitioner and also for a direction to the third respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 representation. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it was contended that the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet at Kottiyam was reserved for physically handicapped persons. However it was pointed out in the counter affidavit that Ext.P1 notification did not mention that the handicap should be congenital as the respondent Corporation had not intended that the handicap should be congenital. According to respondents 1 and 2 the application for dealership under the said category can be preferred by a person who is handicapped to the extent mentioned in the notification subject to other conditions mentioned in the notification. It was also stated that the interview and selection were conducted by the third respondent Dealer Selection Board and respondents 1 and 2 had no role in the process of selection. The third respondent found that the 4th respondent satisfied the requirements laid down in Ext.P1 notification and hence the 4th respondent was included in the rank list. It was also stated that with effect from 9.5.2002 the Dealer Selection Board stood terminated and therefore no further action could be taken on the petitioner’s complaint. According to respondents 1 and 2, they only followed the recommendation of the third respondent. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the third respondent also. According to the averments in the said counter affidavit the guidelines in force at the relevant time provided that the person should be Orthopaedically handicapped to the extent of a minimum of 40% permanent/partial disability of either upper or lower limbs or 50% permanent/partial disability of both upper and lower limbs together. According to the averments in the said counter affidavit the guidelines in force at the relevant time provided that the person should be Orthopaedically handicapped to the extent of a minimum of 40% permanent/partial disability of either upper or lower limbs or 50% permanent/partial disability of both upper and lower limbs together. For this purpose the standards contained in the ‘Manual for Orthopaedic Surgeon in evaluating Permanent Physically Impairment’ brought out by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, USA and published on its behalf by the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India, G.T. Road, Kanpur, shall apply. Deaf, Dumb and blind persons will also be eligible to apply for all dealerships/distributorships under the category of physically handicapped. 29 candidates were called for interview and 26 of them appeared for he interview. During the interview the merits of the candidates were assessed applying the yardstick as laid down in the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. A rank list was prepared in which the 4th respondent was assigned rank No.1. The petitioner did not find a place in the merit list. The guidelines did not provide that the disability suffered should be congenital and therefore even if such disability was on account of an accident as in the case of the 4th respondent, such candidates also are eligible to be considered in the quota for physically handicapped persons. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the enquiry into Ext.P2 complaint of the petitioner could not be finalized due to the termination of the Dealer Selection Board with effect from 9.5.2002. It was categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the 4th respondent satisfied the eligibility conditions and therefore there was no merit in the petitioner’s complaint. 5. The 4th respondent also filed a counter affidavit disputing the claims of the petitioner. 6. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the petitioner that being a congenitally handicapped person he ought to have been preferred over an accidentally handicapped person like the 4th respondent. According to the learned Single Judge Ext.P1 only shows that physically handicapped persons are entitled to apply as per the guidelines if they satisfy the minimum criteria and there is no reservation among the reserved category. Orthopaedically handicapped persons – whether the disability is by birth or subsequently – does not make any difference. According to the learned Single Judge Ext.P1 only shows that physically handicapped persons are entitled to apply as per the guidelines if they satisfy the minimum criteria and there is no reservation among the reserved category. Orthopaedically handicapped persons – whether the disability is by birth or subsequently – does not make any difference. In the absence of any reservation to the congenitally handicapped persons it cannot be said that the petitioner should get preference over an accidentally handicapped person. They should be treated alike. The learned Single Judge also observed that if the comparative merit is to be decided, a person who became handicapped subsequently would be a sufferer more than a congenitally handicapped person because the former has to get himself adjusted as a result of the disability acquired later, he having lived without any such disability. 7. Having heard Mr.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant, and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. In our view, the learned Single judge was right in dismissing the Original Petition and holding that as per Ext.P1 notification and the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas a congenitally physically handicapped person was not entitled to any preference over an accidentally handicapped person. In the absence of any such stipulation in Ext.P1 notification or in the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas it cannot be held that only a congenitally handicapped person is eligible to apply for the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealership pursuant to Ext.P1 notification or that the 4th respondent who became physically handicapped due to a motor accident is not eligible to apply. So long as no distinction was made in Ext.P1 notification and the prescribed guidelines between congenitally handicapped persons and accidentally handicapped persons the 4th respondent could not have been treated as ineligible and the petitioner could not have been given preference over the 4th respondent. Hence no interference with the selection made by respondents 1 to 3 is warranted and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the Original Petition. 8. Hence no interference with the selection made by respondents 1 to 3 is warranted and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the Original Petition. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to note that the objective of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to give benefit to those who are disabled not by accident but by natural causes. According to the learned counsel the disability prescribed in the said Act has to be understood in contra distinction with accidental disability as otherwise the whole object of the Act will be negated. In our view, there is absolutely no merit in the contention. As the Preamble of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act. 1995 states, the Act is intended to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region, adopted at the meeting convened at Beijing from 1st to 5th December, 1992 by the economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region to launch the Asian and Pacific Dacade of Disabled Persons 1993-2002. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, it was necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the following: (i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-à-vis, non-disabled persons; (iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v) to lay down strategies for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and (vi) to make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream.” Section 2 (i) of the Act defines ‘disability’ as: (i) blindness; (ii) Tow vision; (iii) Leprosy-cured’ (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii) mental illness. Section 32 of the Act provides that appropriate Government shall – (a) identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability; (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list, taking into consideration the development in technology. Section 33 of the Act stipulates that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three percent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from – (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability; According to Section 38 of the Act the appropriate Governments and local authorities shall by notification formulate schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities, and such schemes may provide for – (a) the training and welfare of persons with disabilities; (b) the relaxation of upper age limit; (c) regulating the employment; (d) health and safety measures and creation of a non-handicapping environment in places where persons with disabilities are employed; (e) the manner in which and the persons by whom the cost of operating the schemes is to be defrayed; and (f) constituting the authority responsible for the administration of the scheme. According to Section 66 of the Act the appropriate Governments and the local authorities shall within the limits of their economic capacity and development undertake or cause to be undertaken rehabilitation of all persons with disabilities. On a careful reading of all the provisions in the Act we are not able to find any provision which indicates that the objective of the Act is to give benefit to those who are disabled not by accident but by natural causes or that the disability mentioned in the Act has to be understood in contra distinction with accidental disability. There is also no indication that a congenitally handicapped person is entitled to any preference over a person who became handicapped due to an accident. 9. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge failed to address the main question as to whether a person who has already received compensation for his handicap can claim relief under the Act and if so whether preference should be given to persons who have not received any relief. 9. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge failed to address the main question as to whether a person who has already received compensation for his handicap can claim relief under the Act and if so whether preference should be given to persons who have not received any relief. In our view, the receipt of compensation by a person in an accident case is totally irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether the applicant is a physically disabled person and whether the disability is above the minimum percentage stipulated in Ext.P1 notification and the guidelines. It is immaterial whether the disability is congenital or is caused by accident. Respondents 1 to 3 could not have gone beyond the requirements contained in Ext.P1 notification and the guidelines. As already pointed out, Ext.P1 notification and the guidelines did not make any distinction between a congenitally disabled person and a person disabled due to accident. There was also no stipulation that a person who received compensation in an accident case was ineligible to apply or that a person who did not receive any compensation or relief in respect of the disability should be preferred to a person who received compensation. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. 10.In the above circumstances there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.