ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 14.07.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.5669 of 2004 by which petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner was holding the post of Lance Naik. According to petitioner, he was posted at Rajauri Sector during Kargil war where he suffered injuries whereas respondents' stand is that the petitioner suffered injuries while fighting with militant. Be it may be, petitioner suffered injuries and consequential medical disability while discharging duties. Due to this medical disability, petitioner was given sedentary duty and was posted as bus conductor of a school bus. When the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable, his case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 14.02.2002. However, he was declared fail, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court to challenge the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee wherein he was declared fail. 4. In reply, it came that petitioner was found unfit for promotion due to 75% medical disability as certified by the office of Medical Superintendent, Safdarganj Hospital, New Delhi. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner could not have been denied promotion because of his alleged disablement for two reasons; firstly, even as per the rules of the respondents and the medical category prescribed itself, the petitioner was not disqualified for the promotion and secondly, the petitioner was entitled to promotion in view of Section 47(2) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which clearly provides that no person can be denied promotion merely on the ground of disability obviously, if a suitable post is there and according to learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant, even if in a case where a suitable promotional post is not available on which person like petitioner can be promoted, then supernumerary post is required to be created so as to give benefit to such disable persons and in view of the above reasons also, the petitioner could not have been denied the promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the instruction of the Government dated 27.07.2001, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-A, medical category of S, H, A, P, E-1 is mandatory condition and without this medical category, no person can be given promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the instruction of the Government dated 27.07.2001, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-A, medical category of S, H, A, P, E-1 is mandatory condition and without this medical category, no person can be given promotion. It is also submitted that petitioner was continuing on the post of bus conductor because of the reason that when respondents wanted to transfer the petitioner from Hazaribagh to a different place Bareli, he preferred writ petition wherein interim order was passed. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the detailed reply filed by them which only indicates one thing that petitioner was medically unfit and as per the instruction dated 27.07.2001 referred above, the Departmental Promotion Committee was under obligation to consider the case of such disable person but was bound to reject the candidature and in a case where the candidate subsequently acquires the medical fitness, then he could have been promoted but without back wages. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 14.07.2011. The learned Single Judge considered the counter filed by the respondents and reached to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled to benefit under Section 47(2) of the Disabilities Act of 1995 and further, the petitioner failed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. 8. It will be appropriate to look into the circular of the respondents themselves dated 27.07.2001. The relevant clause is Clause 3 of the circular which is as under :- 3. Medical Category SHAPE-1 will be an essential eligibility condition for promotion of all combatised personnel in all groups/ranks/cadres in the CPMFs. 9. The clause which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is Clause 5, which is as under :- 5. SHAPE-1 medical category will be mandatory for the purpose of promotion to Group 'A' posts in CPMFs. 9. The clause which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is Clause 5, which is as under :- 5. SHAPE-1 medical category will be mandatory for the purpose of promotion to Group 'A' posts in CPMFs. In case of those, whose illness is of permanent nature and who are not SHAPE-1, they will be considered for promotion by DPC but be declared unfit for promotion, even if, they are otherwise fit for promotion, case of those personnel, who illness is of temporary nature, after considering cases for promotion alongwith others, if they are otherwise fit, the DPC will grade them as 'fit for promotion' subject to attaining SHAPE-1 medical category. As when they regain the SHAPE-1 medical category, they will be promoted as per recommendations of DPC. But they will not be entitled to back wages. However, they will retain their seniority. 10. Another relevant clause is 13(b), which reads as under :- 13(b).Officers/men who are wounded / injured during field firing / accidental firing / explosion of mines or other explosive device and due to accidents while on active Government duty in India or abroad, will be eligible for promotion in the following SHAPE category :- i)S1H1A2P1E1 ii)S1H1A1P2E1 iii)S1H2A1P1E1 iv)S1H1A1P1E2 v)S1H2A1P1E2 11. It is clear from clause 3 referred above that there are two types of the assignments/jobs in the service, one is the job of combatised person and another is sedentary post, reference of which we can find from the instruction issued by the respondents for “Medical Examination and Classification of Personnel Service in the CPMFs" wherein the category P3, which the alleged disqualification of the petitioner, has been dealt with, at page 16. For medical category P3, it has been mentioned that a person who is medically falling in category P3, is fit for sedentary duties not involving undue stress, may have restricted employability as advised by the medical authorities as mentioned under the said clause. For medical category P3, it has been mentioned that a person who is medically falling in category P3, is fit for sedentary duties not involving undue stress, may have restricted employability as advised by the medical authorities as mentioned under the said clause. Therefore, when there are two types of jobs in the service and the medical category P3 declares a P3 disabled person fit for sedentary duties, which is disability of the petitioner and who at present, has been assigned sedentary duties, then it cannot be said that Clause 5 of the same circular dated 27.07.2001 will make Clause 3 redundant and Clause 5 alone will be applicable in contrast to specific mention in Clause 3 that it will apply to “combatised personnel” as specific restriction made in Clause 3 of the above circular applies to the combatised personnel. The petitioner is in medical category S1H1A1P3E1. These categories are :- S1 – S1 relates to mental stress and psychological condition with no likelihood of further breakdown and if one is in S1 category, then he is fit for all duties anywhere. H1 - H1 is in relation to ailment of hearing in both ears and the candidate can hear forced whisper at a distance of 6 meters by each ears separately. Person falling in this category is also fit for all duties anywhere. A1 - A1 category is relating to the full functional capacity with any minor impairments example of which has been given in category A-1(U) and A-1(L). The person falling in category A1 is also fit for all duties anywhere. E1 - E1 relates to the eyesight and high colour perception with no ocular pathology with certain corrections permissible but even one is falling in this category, then also he is fit for all duties anywhere. Since the petitioner has been denied promotion because of medical category P3, we have to examine clause P3. P3 – P3 category clearly provides that such candidates who are falling in category P3 are fit for sedentary duties not involving undue stress and may have restricted employability as advised by the medical board and if medical board advise so, then also they can be given duties. 12. Since the petitioner is having all other medical fitness, except his falling in category P3. 12. Since the petitioner is having all other medical fitness, except his falling in category P3. We may again reiterate that petitioner is not in combatised posting and, therefore, he is not posted in war field and he is discharging duties of bus conductor and so is even in a fact situation that petitioner is in the cadre of Lance Naik which may be combatised post. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the respondents also favours the petitioner that in combatised post also, there are sedentary duties and, therefore, the petitioner, even while holding a combatised post, was discharging sedentary duties which has been assigned by the respondents themselves. 13. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to promotion as per the guidelines given by the respondents themselves even without help of the provisions of the Disabilities Act of 1995. So far as Disabilities Act of 1995 is concerned, it may be true that one notification was issued on 10.09.2002 exempting application of the Disabilities Act in Armed Force Services but that notification came on 10.09.2002 whereas the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of the petitioner on 14.02.2002, therefore, this notification dated 10.09.2002 also has no application to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner could not have been denied the promotion on the ground of coming into force of the notification dated 10.09.2002. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.07.2011 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the light of the reasons given above and pass appropriate order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.