Judgment 1. Heard. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner challenges his non-selection for recruitment of staff pursuant to notification no. 706 issued by the Bihar Staff Selection Board. 3. Petitioner had applied for the post of trade instructor-electrician. Petitioner was a general category candidate but claimed to be physically challenged. He was not selected. He challenged it before this court and this court directed the commission to furnish the marks secured by the petitioner. The same have been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner and filed in this court today. Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing and very fairly states that the marks are not in dispute. He raises the question that physically challenged persons are a class by themselves and there ought to have been firstly separate reservation for them in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disability, Equal Opportunity Act, 1995. His second submission is that though in the advertisement or in the rules for appointment, there is no provision for stipulating minimum qualifying marks and the same has been done by the commission but while doing so, no separate minimum qualifying marks for physically handicapped persons have been stipulated. This amounts to hostile discrimination in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution where unequals are being sought to be treated equally. 4. Learned Advocate General appears in support of the results as published by the commission and to oppose the writ application. Counter affidavit and reply thereof have been filed. With consent of the parties, this writ application has been heard at the stage of admission itself for its final disposal. 5. The concept of reservation so far as relevant to the present context is two fold. Firstly, as contemplated by the Constitution thus in terms a constitutional right and second a statutory right being reservation created in terms of the Act aforesaid. So far as the constitutional rights are concerned, they are basically referable to Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution and are limited to types and categories mentioned therein. Physically challenged persons do not find mention therein. Their reservation rights are covered by the Central Act of 1995 referred to above. A reference to Section 33 of the Act aforesaid provided that there is to be a minimum 3 per cent reservation for physically challenged persons for Government jobs. Physically challenged persons do not find mention therein. Their reservation rights are covered by the Central Act of 1995 referred to above. A reference to Section 33 of the Act aforesaid provided that there is to be a minimum 3 per cent reservation for physically challenged persons for Government jobs. It does not say that physically challenged persons have to be made an independent class by itself but it provides that there must be an overall reservation in respect thereof 3 per cent. The petitioner challenges the rational of Government circular which inter alia provides that in matters of public employment, there already exists reservation for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and other category of persons. The circular provides that 3 per cent reservation for physically handicapped person would be in respect of the 3 per cent of each category. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that this reservation which in fact would be 3 per cent of general category, reserved for general category physically handicapped, 3 per cent of scheduled caste handicapped persons etc. would be in conflict with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act aforesaid. He submits what Section 33 of the Act contemplates is carving out a separate category of physically handicapped irrespective of their caste or other consideration. This is what is primarily wrong with the system envisaged by the State Government. 6. Having considered the matter, in this respect I am of the opinion that the policy of the Government as evident from the circular and adopted and applied by the commission is rational and not arbitrary. It gives physically challenged persons of each category independent of another a chance to secure Government jobs. It realizes the need of every class or caste and group of the society to have a reservation for their physically challenged. If it was as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner then all physically challenged persons irrespective of their backgrounds would be clubbed in one category and then obviously the general category, physically challenged persons would have upper hand suffering for no other social economic or educational disability. Thus depriving the rest of their fair share of reservation. To my mind the directions of the State are in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution and in consonance of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act aforesaid. Doing otherwise would be open to challenge. Thus depriving the rest of their fair share of reservation. To my mind the directions of the State are in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution and in consonance of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act aforesaid. Doing otherwise would be open to challenge. Therefore, in my considered view the first ground of challenge must fail, as the policy envisaged reservation for physically challenged persons of each class or category to have fair opportunity in empioyment. 7. The next submission is with regard to cut of marks. First it must be noticed that the commission performs the work of selection of best suited candidates. In such a process, it has inherent power and if I may say so an obligation to provide minimum eligibility in matters of qualifying examination. The said eligibility question arises after persons sit in the examination for it cannot be said that a person securing negative marks (in negative marking system) or "0" marks in the written test must be appointed if there are no better candidates. There is no obligation to appoint persons if they are not found fit otherwise. This is the reason why minimum qualifying marks are prescribed. This may be done before or after the exams are taken but surely before results are declared. It cannot be said that specifying those marks are discriminatory in any manner or arbitrary in any manner as all persons belonging to the same class are treated equally. Thus who will be eliminate would be a person who fails to make the mark. Such persons have no place for seeking employment. 8. Now the question is, once the right of the commission to fix minimum qualifying marks is accepted then the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the minimum qualifying marks should be separate so far as physically challenged persons are concerned. The effect of Government circular would be that a physically challenged persons of general category would be compared with other general category persons, so far as minimum qualifying marks are concerned. This in the submission of the petitioner would be discriminatory. There must be separate minimum qualifying marks for physically challenged in their submission. 9. In my view having considered the matter, I do not find it is discriminatory. This in the submission of the petitioner would be discriminatory. There must be separate minimum qualifying marks for physically challenged in their submission. 9. In my view having considered the matter, I do not find it is discriminatory. As contemplated under Article 14 equality clause is violated if unequais are treated equally and the other were equals are treated unequally. Here what is submitted on behalf of the petitioner is that persons who are physically challenged and normal persons are two different class but have been treated similarly thus violating the Rule of Article 14. In my view, this submission is based on a misconception. If we refer to Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution, we find that education is one of the many parameters contained therein for causing positive discrimination. So far as physically challenged persons are concerned, in the qualifying examination, education is not a matter which has to be given different weightage for normally and physically challenged person their educational ability in that class is the same. Giving different minimum qualifying marks for scheduled caste. Scheduled tribe and general category is justifiable as they are different classes suffering from different educational disabilities for different reasons. The same cannot be said when we come to physically challenged persons. A person having locomotion disabilities to a certain extent cannot be said who have less opportunity of education then a person from his category where minimum education standards are prescribed. This is not so when we compare a general category candidate and a candidate from scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. If minimum marks are to be prescribed for physically challenged as a separate category as such then in my opinion it would fall foul with Article 14 inasmuch as S.C., S.T. and General Category will be treated at par notwithstanding their educational disabilities. This would clearly be a case of unequals being treated equally. Therefore to say that there ought to be a sub-ciassification so far as minimum qualifying marks is concerned between a general category persons and a general category physically challenged persons is not validly available argument. By not discriminating between the two in respect of minimum qualifying marks, no hostile discrimination is practised which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In matters of education they are same and must be judged by same standards. Doing otherwise would tantamount to treating equals unequally. By not discriminating between the two in respect of minimum qualifying marks, no hostile discrimination is practised which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In matters of education they are same and must be judged by same standards. Doing otherwise would tantamount to treating equals unequally. 10. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ application, it is accordingly dismissed.