Judgment (Chief Justice) Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Modle waives service of Rule for the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner belongs to Special Backward category. He suffers from disability of 100% hearing impairment. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent Corporation has reserved posts of clerks for persons with disabilities as required under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The respondent-Municipal Corporation had issued an advertisement in the year 2008 and invited applications for the posts of clerk including for the posts of clerk reserved for three different disabilities i.e. visual disability, hearing impairment disability and locomotive disability. The petitioner had applied in response to the advertisement for the post reserved for persons with hearing impairment disability. It is the case of the respondent Municipal Corporation that the petitioner was selected for the post of clerk reserved for persons with disability, but when the petitioner was sent for medical examination after selection, the medical board of the Corporation found that the petitioner was having 100% hearing impairment and on that ground alone the petitioner was considered to be medically unfit for being appointed to the post of clerk. 3. The petitioner accordingly filed the present petition challenging the said decision of the authorities and prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Municipal Corporation to appoint the petitioner on the post of clerk reserved for persons with hearing impairment disability. 4. The affidavit in reply came to be filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation on 5 October 2010 pointing out the above facts. However, at the hearing of the petition on 27 September 2011 the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation pointed out that the Corporation proposed to issue an advertisement by which even persons having 100% hearing disability will be allowed to participate in the selection process and would be entitled to appointment, if selected. However, at the hearing of the petition on 27 September 2011 the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation pointed out that the Corporation proposed to issue an advertisement by which even persons having 100% hearing disability will be allowed to participate in the selection process and would be entitled to appointment, if selected. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court passed the order dated 27 September 2011 directing that the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions raised in the petition, is allowed to participate in the selection process which will be commenced in pursuance of the advertisement which the Corporation proposed to issue in October 2011 and that in the event the petitioner was not selected, one post reserved for hearing impaired candidate shall be kept vacant until further orders. 5. Thereafter the respondent Corporation issued advertisement in the newspapers on 15 and 16 October 2011 and corrigendum published on 22 October 2011. The Corporation, however, laid down the following criteria for selection of candidates:- “i) Candidate should have passed the S.S.C. (Old/New) or equivalent examination with minimum 65% marks or more; ii) The candidate should have passed Marathi and English subjects of 100 marks in S.S.C., equivalent or any other higher examination. iii) The candidate should possess the Government Commercial Certificate of Typing having speed of 30 w.p.m. in Marathi and English. iv) The candidate should possess the 'CCC' or 'O' Level or 'A' Level or 'B' Level or 'C' Level certificate issued by DOEACC Society or MS-CIT or GECT certificate issued by Maharashtra State Board of Higher and Technical Education. In case if candidate does not possess MS-CIT certificate at the time of selection process he was required to submit the same within 2 years from the date of his/her appointment”. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner had secured only 57% marks at the H.S.C. Examination and, therefore, the petitioner is not qualified to participate in the selection process. 6. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner had secured only 57% marks at the H.S.C. Examination and, therefore, the petitioner is not qualified to participate in the selection process. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the Corporation had issued advertisement in 2008, the petitioner was found to be eligible for the post of clerk and the petitioner was in fact selected for the post of clerk, but the Corporation did not appoint the petitioner only on the ground that the medical certificate at Exhibit “C” (page 23) indicated that the petitioner was fit for the post of clerk, but since his hearing disability was assessed at 100%, the petitioner's case was referred back to the Corporation for doing the needful. It is submitted that the decision of the Corporation not to appoint the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had 100% hearing disability was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It is submitted that the Corporation was, therefore, required to be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of clerk reserved for persons with hearing disability. It is submitted that merely because the Corporation did not rectify the mistake at that time and subsequently sought to rectify the mistake by issuing the two advertisements in October, 2011 mentioning that the persons with 100% hearing disability were also eligible to apply for the post reserved for candidates with hearing disability, the second advertisement itself was sufficient to hold that the Corporation had acted illegally in the year 2008. It is, therefore, submitted that the Corporation be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post reserved for person with hearing disability in the first selection process which took place in the year 2008 and merely because the Corporation has now raised the cut-off percentage to 65% in the second recruitment round in October, 2011 the petitioner cannot be denied appointment to the post of clerk on the ground that the petitioner had secured only 57% marks. 7. On the other hand Ms. Modle, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the petitioner's eligibility will have to be considered in light of the second advertisement issued in October 2011 and not in light of the first advertisement issued in 2008. 8. 7. On the other hand Ms. Modle, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the petitioner's eligibility will have to be considered in light of the second advertisement issued in October 2011 and not in light of the first advertisement issued in 2008. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submission of Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was wrongfully denied appointment on the post of clerk reserved for candidate with hearing disability only on the ground that the petitioner had 100% hearing disability, even after the petitioner's selection in 2008, the petitioner cannot now be denied appointment on the ground of change in the eligibility criteria in the second recruitment process. 9. We may also note that as per the information placed by the Corporation on record, 42 posts were reserved for persons with hearing disability. Only two candidates were selected by the Corporation and out of them only one candidate has been actually appointed. In other words as many as 41 posts of clerks reserved for candidates with hearing disability are still lying vacant. This Court had already directed by order dated 27 September 2011 to keep one post vacant. Hence, that post which was required to be kept vacant even at the time of issuance of the advertisement in October, 2011 ought to be made available for appointment of the petitioner. 10. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondent corporation is directed to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of clerk reserved for candidates with hearing disability on the basis of the petitioner's selection made in response to the advertisement of 2008. This shall be done within four weeks from today.