JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gautam Baghel appears for the U.P. Public Service Commission. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash the Advertisement No. A-4/E-1/2011 dated 13th August, 2011 published by the U.P. Public Services Commission (in short the Commission) in Rozgar Samachar of 6th-12th August, 2011, inviting application for 102 posts of Asstt. Prosecuting Officers providing for reservation for three vacancies for physically disabled persons, in the manner, that two posts are reserved for persons with disability of OA (one arm) and one post for OL (one leg). The petitioner also prayed for directions to include a column to disclose the sub-category of the disability of physically handicapped persons in column No. 7 (d) of the application form for the post of Asstt. Public Prosecutor, for identifying the OA and OL sub-categories of physically handicapped candidates, and to permit only those physically handicapped candidates to appear for preliminary examination, who belongs to sub-category OA or OL, and to exclude all other physically handicapped categories, from consideration and for permitting only those, who fall in these sub-categories in the preliminary examination for the post of A.P.O. 3. It is submitted that though the petitioner belongs to OA (one arm) sub-category for which one vacancy has been reserved, due to the defect in the OMR application from, for applying to the post, in which the sub-category of physically handicapped persons is not specified, the persons suffering from other disabilities namely the persons with blindness or low vision, persons with hearing loss and the persons with other physical disabilities falling in the category of locomotive disability and cerebral palsy will apply for the post, (which is reserved for OL (one leg) and OA (one arm) category), thereby reducing the petitioner’s chance for succeeding in the preliminary examination and for appearing in the mains examination. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State of U.P., Shri V.P. Varshney appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission submits that the advertisement clearly mentions that the three posts are reserved for physically handicapped persons, indicating the categories, 2 for OA and 1 for OL. The OMR form for applying to the post for preliminary examination, prescribes the categories of physical disability. The preliminary examination is held for the purposes of short-listing the candidates. The OMR form for applying to the post for preliminary examination, prescribes the categories of physical disability. The preliminary examination is held for the purposes of short-listing the candidates. The writ petition has been filed only on apprehension that the persons suffering from physical disability of various other categories will also apply reducing the chance of the petitioner to be shortlisted for appearing in the mains examination. 5. The petitioner, as a physically disabled persons belonging to OA (one arm) category, will be allowed to appear in the preliminary examination. The U.P. Public Service Commission will thereafter sort out the applications of persons in various categories for appearing in the mains examination, and will allow only those candidates, who are physically disabled, falling in the sub-category for which the post has been specified, to appear in the mains examination. 6. In A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath, (2009) 5 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court held that the shortlisting of candidates for main examination for Group-1 services in the Andhra Pradesh examination in the ratio of 1:50, to total number of vacancies basing on preliminary examination and fixation of cut off mark does not infringe the right to reservation, of candidates belonging to reserved communities. Lowering of marks for candidates belonging to reserved categories is not a constitutional mandate at the threshold. 7. The petitioner has to secure minimum marks in preliminary examination to appear in mains examination. There is nothing to indicate that the number of physically handicapped candidates in the category of locomotive disability are such that the petitioner will loose his chances to appear in the mains examination. At the stage of preliminary examination, to shortlist the candidates, there is no such competition to eliminate the eligible candidates in their reserved categories. The contention that by allowing all physically handicapped categories, without specifying the sub-category for which the posts are reserved, the petitioner will be left out or will be competing with those, who do not fall in the category for which the posts are reserved, may not be correct. 8. Though we have doubts regarding the identification of only OA (one arm) and OL (one leg) persons as sub-categories of physically disabled persons suffering with locomotive disability, for the post of Asstt. 8. Though we have doubts regarding the identification of only OA (one arm) and OL (one leg) persons as sub-categories of physically disabled persons suffering with locomotive disability, for the post of Asstt. Public Prosecutor, discriminating the persons suffering from other locomotive disabilities (which may be more than 40%), since no person with any other locomotive disability has come forward to challenge the notification, we do not propose to go into the issue in this writ petition. 9. The writ petition filed before preliminary examination in the process of selection is based only on apprehensions and is accordingly dismissed. ——————