JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Respondent-State issued notification dated 15.10.2007 whereby under section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity sake), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh was pleased to identify the following persons for 3% reservation in direct recruitment for various categories of posts in Ayurveda Department in respect of Class-1 to IV posts for disabled persons of Himachal Pradesh: Sr.No. Name of the posts/class Sanctioned strength Direct recruitment Reservation to PH (%) Backlog 1 AMO 1144 100.00% 3.00% 21 2 Ay. Pharmacist 1171 100.00% 3.00% 26 3 Staff Nurse 51 75.00% 3.00% 1 4 ANMs 190 100.00% 3.00% 5 5 Trained Dai 891 100.00% 3.00% 22 6 Clerks 109 90.00% 3.00% - 7 Class-IV 1080 50.00% 3.00% 6 8 Sweeper 167 50.00% 3.00% 2 3% reservation was further to be allocated amongst visually impaired, hearing impaired and orthopedically handicapped categories in the ratio of 1% each year with effect from 7.2.1996, i.e. from the date of commencement of the Act subject to the availability of the suitable candidates. However, vide addendum issued on 30.11.2007, 3% reservation was only confined to orthopedically handicapped persons. 2. Respondent-Department framed Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 26.8.2009. An advertisement was issued vide Annexure P-4 whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist on contract. According to Annexure P-4, six posts were reserved for general category, one post for scheduled caste and two posts for other backward class in orthopedically handicapped category. Petitioner submitted an application on 18.11.2011. She is visually impaired as per medical certificate placed on record. Since the posts were reserved only for orthopedically handicapped persons, petitioner approached this Court for the redressal of her grievance. This Court passed an interim-order on 27.1.2012 whereby petitioner was directed to be interviewed provisionally. The interviews were fixed for 30/31.1.2012. This Court on 18.4.2012 passed the following order: "The core issue involved in this petition is whether the petitioner and the similarly situate persons who are visually impaired are fit to discharge the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist or not. 2. The interviews were fixed for 30/31.1.2012. This Court on 18.4.2012 passed the following order: "The core issue involved in this petition is whether the petitioner and the similarly situate persons who are visually impaired are fit to discharge the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist or not. 2. Consequently, the Senior Medical Superintendent, IGMC is directed to constitute the Board comprising of the Head of Department of Ophthalmology and two senior most Professors/Assistant Professors in the same subject to examine the petitioner on the basis of her medical certificates and to opine whether the petitioner is in a position to discharge the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist or not. The Board be constituted within a period of one week from today. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on 27.4.2012 with her medical certificates. The final report be supplied to this Court by the Medical Board in a sealed cover on or before 1.5.2012." 3. Process culminated on 31.1.2012 and the result was declared on 9.2.2012. In sequel to order dated 18.4.2012, the Medical Board was constituted to see whether the petitioner can discharge the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist or not. Petitioner was medically examined on 27.4.2012 by the Medical Board. According to the Medical Board, petitioner was suffering from Pthisis Bulbi right eye and para central nebular corneal opacity left eye and she could read and write. It was also opined by the Medical Board that the petitioner was fit to perform the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. Thereafter, on 16.5.2012, the Director, Ayurveda, who was present in the Court, assured the Court that in view of the recommendations made by the duly constituted Medical Board, the matter shall be reviewed in accordance with law. This Court had directed to place the decision on record on the personal affidavit of the Director, Ayurveda. In sequel to these directions, the Director, Ayurveda has sent the communication to the office of Advocate General dated 5.7.2012. The State Government vide notification dated 5.7.2012, copy of which is placed on record, has notified the following categories of persons eligible for posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Ayurvedic Pharmacist, Staff Nurse, ANM and Trained Dai: i. Low vision upto 50% ii. Hearing impaired upto 50% iii. Orthopedically handicapped (having at least two arms and one leg). However, it is stated in the letter dated 5.7.2012 that the notification dated 5.7.2012 would apply prospectively. Hearing impaired upto 50% iii. Orthopedically handicapped (having at least two arms and one leg). However, it is stated in the letter dated 5.7.2012 that the notification dated 5.7.2012 would apply prospectively. The Director, Ayurveda has also informed the office of Advocate General on 9.5.2012 that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as Ayurvedic Pharmacist in view of Annexures R-1 and R-II dated 15.10.2007 and 30.11.2007, respectively. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has strenuously argued that the action of respondent-State to issue addendum dated 30.11.2007 was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. According to him, there was no need to issue addendum dated 30.11.2007 after the issuance of notification dated 15.10.2007 whereby 3% reservation was provided for visually impaired, hearing impaired and orthopedically handicapped categories in the ratio of 1% each year with effect from 7.2.1996, from the date of enactment of the Act. He then argued that respondent- Department could not reserve all the nine posts for orthopedically handicapped persons by ignoring the just and fair claim of the petitioner, who is visually impaired. He further contended that now the State Government has again reversed the decision vide notification dated 5.7.2012 whereby reservation has been provided for persons: low vision upto 50%, hearing impaired upto 50% and orthopedically handicapped (having at least two arms and one leg). He lastly contended that the petitioner has already been interviewed pursuant to the directions of this Court and as per the reply filed by the respondent-State; one post has not been filled up. 5. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the process has already commenced pursuant to Annexure R-II dated 30.11.2007, which led to issuance of advertisement Annexure P-4. According to him, nine posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacists were allocated to orthopedically handicapped persons and the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. Respondent-State vide notification dated 15.10.2007, strictly under section 32 of the Act has identified posts, including the posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacists for the purpose of 3% reservation for direct recruitment. The total cadre strength of Ayurvedic Pharmacists is 1171 and the State Government has decided to fill up 300 Ayurvedic Pharmacists as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 26.8.2009. The total cadre strength of Ayurvedic Pharmacists is 1171 and the State Government has decided to fill up 300 Ayurvedic Pharmacists as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 26.8.2009. 3% reservation was allocated amongst visually impaired, hearing impaired and orthopedically handicapped categories in the ratio of 1% each year with effect from 7.2.1996. However, without there being any plausible and cogent reason, the State has issued addendum whereby 3% allocation has been made available only to orthopedically handicapped persons, which led to issuance of advertisement Annexure P-4. In other words, petitioner, who is visually impaired, was left out from the consideration by the respondent-State. 8. Mr. Vikas Rathore also argued at the time of hearing that petitioner cannot discharge the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist being visually impaired. In order to ascertain whether the petitioner and similarly situate persons can discharge the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist or not, the Court had directed the Senior Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla on 18.4.2012 to constitute a Medical Board. Consequently, the Medical Board was constituted and the petitioner was examined on 27.4.2012. The report of the Medical Board is at page 31 of the paper book. According to the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner can read and write and was fit to perform the duties of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. The Court immediately after the receipt of report of the Medical Board directed the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. However, as noticed above, though the State Government has issued fresh notification on 5.7.2012 thereby providing 3% reservation to low vision upto 50%, hearing impaired upto 50% and orthopedically handicapped (having at least two arms and one leg), but vide letter dated 9.5.2012 has declined to offer appointment to the petitioner, who has already been interviewed provisionally on 31.1.2012 on the basis of order of this Court dated 27.1.2012. Respondent- State has flouted the mandate of section 32 of the Act by allocating 3% reservation only to orthopedically handicapped persons by ignoring the claim of other categories, including visually impaired persons and hearing impaired persons. Petitioner was legitimately expecting that she would be considered against 3% reservation provided under section 32 of the Act. The entire approach of the respondent-State ought to be more humane taking into consideration the hardship of the physically challenged persons. Petitioner was legitimately expecting that she would be considered against 3% reservation provided under section 32 of the Act. The entire approach of the respondent-State ought to be more humane taking into consideration the hardship of the physically challenged persons. These persons face disability and impediments throughout their career and the Act has been enacted to bring them in main stream with dignity. The action of the respondent-State cannot be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Act. Respondent-State has provided 3% reservation, which has been spread over to low vision, hearing impaired and orthopedically handicapped (having at least two arms and one leg) on 15.10.2007. However, in most arbitrary manner, it was confined to orthopedically handicapped persons on the basis of addendum issued vide Annexure R-II dated 30.11.2007. The apprehension of the respondent-State that the petitioner would not be able to discharge the duties has been allayed on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board. The entire case was required to be handled by the State with sense of responsibility. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Bashir Uddin Qadri v. Nazir Ahmed Shah and others, (2010) 3 SCC 603 have held as under: "47. It has to be kept in mind that this case is not one of the normal cases relating to a person's claim for employment. This case involves a beneficial piece of social legislation to enable persons with certain forms of disability to live a life of purpose and human dignity. This is a case which has to be handled with sensitivity and not with bureaucratic apathy, as appears to have been done as far as the appellant is concerned." 10. Similarly, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of India through Secretary and another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another, (2010) 7 SCC 626 have discussed the scope of the Act in detail, including the identification of the posts. Their Lordships have held as under: "22. We have examined the matter with great care having regard to the nature of the issues involved in relation to the intention of the legislature to provide for integration of persons with disabilities into the social main stream and to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development and programmes and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities and for their education, training, employment and rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities. We have considered the matter from the said angle to ensure that the object of the Disabilities Act, 1995, which is to give effect to the proclamation on the full participation and equality of the people with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region, is fulfilled. 27. It is only logical that, as provided in Section 32 of the aforesaid Act, posts have to be identified for reservation for the purposes of Section 33, but such identification was meant to be simultaneously undertaken with the coming into operation of the Act, to give effect to the provisions of Section 33. The legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. Such a submission strikes at the foundation of the provisions relating to the duty cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in every establishment (emphasis added). 29. While it cannot be denied that unless posts are identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act, no appointments from the reserved categories contained therein can be made, and that to such extent the provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 of the Act, as submitted by the learned ASG, but the extent of such dependence would be for the purpose of making appointments and not for the purpose of making reservation. In other words, reservation under Section 33 of the Act is not dependent on identification, as urged on behalf of the Union of India, though a duty has been cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in the number of posts reserved for the three categories mentioned in Section 33 of the Act in respect of persons suffering from the disabilities spelt out therein. In fact, a situation has also been noticed where on account of non-availability of candidates some of the reserved posts could remain vacant in a given year. For meeting such eventualities, provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for two years after which they would lapse. Since in the instant case such a situation did not arise and posts were not reserved under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, the question of carrying forward of vacancies or lapse thereof, does not arise." 11. For meeting such eventualities, provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for two years after which they would lapse. Since in the instant case such a situation did not arise and posts were not reserved under Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, the question of carrying forward of vacancies or lapse thereof, does not arise." 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Ayurvedic Pharmacist in case she has been found suitable by the Selection Committee in the interview, within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.