JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent to consider his representation dated 07.12.2012 and pass appropriate orders thereupon with reference to the G.O.(Ms)No.99 (P & AR) Department dated 26.02.1988. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is a physically challenged person and his both legs were affected by post polio partial paralysis. Further, the District Medial Officer had certified that he had suffered 80% disability. He belong to Most Backward Class community. He studied upto Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering by passing the same in I Class during the year 1994. Based on his educational qualification, he applied for the post of Technical Assistant in the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation. He was initially appointed on 02.06.1997 which was periodically extended once in every 89 days. In all, he had completed more than five years of service. 3. He and other similarly situated persons filed writ petition in W.P.No.8809/2001 before this Court for passing of an order in directing the Respondent to regularise their service and this Court on 27.04.2001 directed the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation to consider their Representation dated 12.09.2000 in regard to their plea for regularisation with reference to G.O.(Ms)No.86 dated 12.03.2001, in and by which the benefit of regularisation was conferred on similarly placed employees. The Respondent through proceedings dated 28.12.2001 passed an order to the effect that since there was no vacancy of Technical Assistance, the Petitioner and others were not eligible for regularisation. A legal notice dated 17.01.2002 was issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation to follow this Court order dated 27.04.2001 in W.P.No.8809 of 2001. 4. The Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation instead of complying with the order of this Court dated 27.04.2001 in W.P.No.8809 of 2001 terminated the Petitioner's service on the ground that there was no vacancy. However, he made repeated representations making a request to the Respondent to consider his case for reinstatement. The Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation through proceedings dated 02.06.2005 directed him to appear for certificate verification on 13.06.2005 along with original certificates. In fact, certificate verification was held on 22.07.2005, inspite of the same, no order of reinstatement was issued in his favour. However, he made repeated representations making a request to the Respondent to consider his case for reinstatement. The Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation through proceedings dated 02.06.2005 directed him to appear for certificate verification on 13.06.2005 along with original certificates. In fact, certificate verification was held on 22.07.2005, inspite of the same, no order of reinstatement was issued in his favour. On 10.07.2007, the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation informed him that on obtaining appropriate orders from the Government of Tamil Nadu to fulfill the post of Technical Assistance, his request would be considered favourably. 5. Further, he came to know that the Government of Tamil Nadu as per G.O.(Ms)No.96 (MA & WS) Department dated 14.10.2012 granted permission to the Respondent/ Chennai City Municipal Corporation to fill up 2405 existing vacancies. Out of which 78 posts of Junior Engineers are also included. The Technical Assistant post in which he was working got re-designated as Junior Engineers. For nearly 10 years, he sought justice at the hands of the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation. 6. The Petitioner in his writ affidavit, at paragraph 5 had inter-alia observed that pursuant to G.O.(Ms)No.96 (MA & WS) Department dated 14.10.2012, the Respondent was taking steps to fulfill the vacancies. The Government of Tamil Nadu has decided to provide preference in public employment to the physically handicapped persons. As such therefore, G.O.(Ms.)No.88 (P & AR) Department dated 26.02.1988, 3% of the vacancies in the public employment towards physically handicapped persons was reserved and it is the specific case of the Petitioner that he is fully eligible to be considered in preference to others as per tenor and spirit of the Government Order aforesaid mentioned. Finally, the Petitioner has prayed for an order by this Court in directing the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation to consider his Representation dated 07.12.2012 and pass appropriate orders with reference to G.O.(Ms)No.88 (P & AR) Department dated 26.02.1988. 7. It is to be pointed out that Section 32 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 speaks of 'Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities' and in fact, Section 33 of the Act refers to 'Reservation of posts'. Further, Section 38 of the Act enjoins of 'Schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities'. Section 43 of the Act deals with 'Schemes for preferential allotment of land for certain purposes'. 8. Further, Section 38 of the Act enjoins of 'Schemes for ensuring employment of persons with disabilities'. Section 43 of the Act deals with 'Schemes for preferential allotment of land for certain purposes'. 8. That apart, definition Section 2(t) of the Act deals with "persons with disability" means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority. Added further, Section 2 (x) deals with "Special Employment Exchange" means any office or place established and maintained by the Government for the collection and furnishing of information, either by keeping of registers or otherwise, etc. To put it precisely in terms of Section 2 of the Act 'Disability' and 'Person with Disabilities' are separately defined and they are distinct as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 2003 SC at page 1623. Section 47 of the Act speaks of 'Non discrimination in Government Employment'. 9. In view of the fact that the Petitioner is admittedly a physically challenged person (his legs were affected by post polio partial paralysis with a disability of 80% etc.,) and also this Court bearing in mind an important fact that the Petitioner's prayer in the Writ Petition is only to consider his Representation dated 07.12.2012 by the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the matter, directs the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation, Chennai-3 representing through Commissioner to consider the Representation of the petitioner in a Fair, Just and Dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits (uninflunenced by any of the observation made by this Court in this Writ Petition). To facilitate the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation to pass a speaking and reasoned order as directed by this Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to submit a fresh copy of his Representation dated 07.12.2012 within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Respondent is directed to pass a reasoned speaking order within a period of five weeks from thereafter. It is also made clear that the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation shall provide adequate/enough opportunity to the Petitioner by adhering to the Principles of Natural justice while disposing his Representation dated 07.12.2012 in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. 10. It is also made clear that the Respondent/Chennai City Municipal Corporation shall provide adequate/enough opportunity to the Petitioner by adhering to the Principles of Natural justice while disposing his Representation dated 07.12.2012 in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.