SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is Booking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6-1-2005 passed by respondent No. 1 and the consequential order dated 26-5-2005, passed by respondent No. 3, denying appointment to the petitioner on the post of Excise Inspector on the ground that there is no reservation for physically handicapped persons on the said post and the petitioners physical disability to the extent of 45% would create obstruction in effective discharge of duties as Excise Inspector and as such, he is unfit for appointment to the post of Excise Inspector. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") advertised the post of Excise Inspector wherein para 6 it was mentioned that the reservation for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, physically handicapped persons, ex-serviceman and dependants of freedom fighters shall be made applicable in accordance with Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes Reservation) 1994 and U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters & Ex-servicemen) Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act ). It is submitted that pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner applied for the post of Excise Inspector as physically handicapped person submitting his certificate verifying 45% physical disability and the Commission selected him for the said post against the quota reserved for physically handicapped candidates, but respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he is physically unfit to perform the duty of Excise Inspector and there is no reservation for the said post in respect of physically handicapped persons. 4. It is not disputed that recruitment of various categories of posts including Excise Inspector in Excise Department is governed by the UP. Subordinate Excise Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 1992 Rules ). Rule 6 of the 1992 Rules provides provides for reservation which reads as under : " (6) Reservation.- Reservation for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories shall be in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. " 5. Rule 6 of the 1992 Rules provides provides for reservation which reads as under : " (6) Reservation.- Reservation for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories shall be in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. " 5. Rule 13 of 1992 provides for physical fitness which reads as under : "physical fitness.- (1) No candidate shall be appointed to a post In the service unless he be In a good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. Before a candidate is finally approved for appointment he shall be required to produce a medical certificate of fitness in accordance with the rules framed under Fundamental Rule 10 as contained in Chapter III of the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part III : Provided that a medical certificate of fitness shall not be required from 3 candidate recruited by promotion. (2) No person shall be recruited directly or by promotion to the service : (i) Whose chest measurement is less than 81. 2 centimetres unexpanded and 86. 2. centimetres expanded. (ii) Whose height is less than 167 centimetres or less than 162 centimetres in the case of the candidates recruited by promotion or belonging to Kumaon Division and Dehra Dun, Chamoli, Tehri Garhwal, Pauri Garhwal and Uttar Kashi districts : Provided that physical requirements in the case of female candidate will be the same as prescribed for the female police Sub-Inspectors. The physical requirements are given in Appendix b. 6. Section 3 of 1993 Act provides for reservation of vacancies in favour of physically handicapped etc. , arid the relevant provision contained in Section 3 (1) (ii) reads as under : Reservation for physically handicapped persons has been provided in the 1993 Act and Section 3 (1) (ii) thereof reads as under : "3. Reservation of vacancies In favour of physically handicapped etc.- (1) There shall be reserved at the stage of direct recruitment – (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i-a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i-a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) in such public services and posts as the State Government may, by notification, identify one per cent of vacancies each for the persons suffering from, - (a) blindness or low vision; (b) hearing impairment; and (c) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. " 7. Therefore, from a bare perusal of Section 3 (1) (ii) of the 1993 Act it is evident that unless the public service or post is identified by the State Government by notification for applying reservation of vacancies for physically handicapped persons, the said reservation would not be suo motu applicable in respect to all public services and posts. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have filed a copy of the notification dated 7th May, 1999 as Annexure-CA-4 which is a notification under Section 3 (1) of 1993 Act, identifying certain Group c and d posts in respect whereto reservation would be available for physically handicapped persons under the 1993 Act. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said notification does not refer to the post of Excise Inspector. No other material or document has been placed before the Court to show that the post of Excise Inspector has been identified by any notification under Section 3 (1) (ii) of the 1993 Act to attract reservation for physically handicapped persons hereunder. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sarlka v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2006 (1) LBESR 277 (All) (FB) : (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2217, after referring to the provisions of 1993 Act as also the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995, hold that reservation for physically handicapped persons under Section 3 of the 1993 Act is subject to notification of posts and service by the State Government and the same being a condition precedent, no reservation for physically handicapped persons can be applied in any service. The relevant observation may be reproduced as under : "the identification of posts in question is a sine qua non for extending the benefit of reservation for the Physically Disabled Persons. The relevant observation may be reproduced as under : "the identification of posts in question is a sine qua non for extending the benefit of reservation for the Physically Disabled Persons. It Is so because the persons for which reservation has been provided may be having such disabilities which may cause obstruction to discharge duties on such posts in the establishment or public service. For example a blind person will not be able to drive a motor vehicle. A person with both legs amputated may not be in a position to perform the duties of a job which require extensive tour, and a person with hearing impairment will not be able to handle the job of telephone operator. A blind or deaf and mute person will not be able to perform the duties of a judicial officer. . . . . . . . . . . " 9. Where the reservation under the statute has not been made applicable to physically handicapped persons, the advertisement published by the Commission would not attract or apply reservation which is not otherwise substantiated by the statute. The advertisement of the Commission has to be read consistent with the statutory provisions. Even from a bare perusal of clause 4 of the advertisement of the Commission, it is evident that the Commission itself notified that the reservation shall be applicable to the various categories of the candidates as provided under the 1993 Act, meaning thereby, if in respect to certain service no such reservation is available, the same would not be applied. Moreover, if an advertisement is inconsistent to the statutory rules, it has to subserve the rule and has to be read consistent with the rules, since neither the Commission has power nor it can otherwise make a selection or recruitment inconsistent with the statutory provisions. 10. In Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U. P. Public Service Commission & Ors. , 2006 (2) LBESR 932 (SC) : JT (2006) 4 S. C. 531, the Apex Court while considering a similar question held as under : ". . . . . . . . . . but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the rules and the order, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to Rules. . . . . . . . . . but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the rules and the order, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules. " 11. Therefore, merely for the reason that the Commission has selected and recommended the petitioner against the vacancy reserved for physically handicapped persons, though under the statute, for the post of Excise Inspector the said reservation is not applicable. The petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on the post of Excise Inspector since his very selection is inconsistent to the statute and would not confer any right upon him to claim appointment. 12. Therefore, I do not find any fault with the orders impugned in the writ petition denying appointment to the petitioner on the post of Excise Inspector on the ground that there is no reservation for physically handicapped persons on the post of Excise Inspector. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .