JUDGMENT 1. - The writ petitioner, a specially abled person with low vision and a contender for the post of Pharmacist, filled up in a process initiated by the advertisement dated 30.12.2011, issued by the respondent-University, seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to set at naught the Notification No. 16-70/2004-DD.III-Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, dated 15.03.2007, issued under the Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), and also for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for the aforementioned post against the vacancies reserved for the disabled persons. 2. We have heard Mr. Hitesh Bansal, the petitioner in person and Mr. Suwalal Pahadiya, Deputy Director on behalf of the respondent No. 2-University. 3. The petitioner, on being queried by this Court, having expressed his desire to argue his own case, has been heard in full. 4. In short, his pleaded case is that he suffers from low vision to the extent of 75%, for which he has been issued a certificate on 30.01.2012 by the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. While highlighting his brilliant academic career inspite of such a handicap, the petitioner has averred that he had passed his B. Pharma Part-IV (new scheme) examination in the month of August, 2011 from Rajasthan University of Health Sciences in first division and also passed M. Pharma Semester-I (Pharmaceuticals) examination in May, 2012. That he had been registered with the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council, Jaipur at S. No. 36152, dated 01.12.2011 and has undergone practical training from Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in the year 2011, has been stated as well. He responded to the aforementioned advertisement for filling up 1476 vacancies, out of which 44 were reserved for physically handicapped persons and was eventually placed at rank No. 6297 in the general category. He had offered his candidature vide his application form No. 20162, dated 21.12.2011 and on receipt of his disability certificate, he submitted the same on 01.02.2012 and requested the Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, to consider his case against the category of posts reserved for disabled persons. As his application was neither considered, nor was any reply given to him, he approached this Court for judicial intervention. 5. As his application was neither considered, nor was any reply given to him, he approached this Court for judicial intervention. 5. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the petitioner has impugned the validity of the Notification dated 15.03.2007, whereby the post of Pharmacist has been reserved for disabled candidates with handicap in one leg or both legs. Alluding to the physical requirements of persons with disabilities to hold the said post as well as the nature of the duties, attached thereto, the petitioner has contended that denial of reservation therefor to persons of low vision, is not only illogical, but also discriminatory and thus constitutionally invalid. 6. The respondent No. 1, in his reply, has pleaded that in terms of his performance in the Pharmacist Recruitment Examination, 2011, the petitioner could not make his mark and, therefore, on the basis of merit, he was not selected. Mentioning that the selected candidates had been appointed vide order dated 11.07.2012, the answering respondent has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition for not impleading them as necessary parties. The respondent has averred that the Government of India, vide Notification dated 15.03.2007, having identified for the post of Pharmacist physically disabled persons, as mentioned therein, the petitioner with low vision to the extent of 75%, was not entitled for the benefit of such reservation. The answering respondent added further that as in terms of the notification identifying the category of disabled persons for the post of Pharmacist, many similarly situated like the petitioner, might not have applied considering them to be ineligible, his plea of discrimination is unfounded. 7. The reply of the respondent No. 2 is substantially in the same lines. 8. In his rejoinder, the petitioner, while referring to five candidates suffering from disabilities other than one leg disability yet appointed, admitted that at the time of submission of his application form, he did not possess the disability certificate and reiterated that the same had been laid before the concerned authority at a subsequent stage. 9. 8. In his rejoinder, the petitioner, while referring to five candidates suffering from disabilities other than one leg disability yet appointed, admitted that at the time of submission of his application form, he did not possess the disability certificate and reiterated that the same had been laid before the concerned authority at a subsequent stage. 9. The petitioner, while reiterating his pleaded stand, has urged that having regard to the guarantee of reservation mandated by Sections 32 and 33 of the Act and Rules 35,36 and 37 of the Rules, he could not have been denied the benefit thereof vis-a-vis the post, more particularly having regard to his performance in the examination as well as overall suitability therefor. He has submitted that not only he possessed the physical requirements for the post, as stipulated by the Notification dated 15.03.2007, exclusion from the benefit of reservation for candidates with low vision, is apparently arbitrary and illogical and as the same is repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Act and the Rules, to that extent, it (Notification dated 15.03.2007) is liable to be adjudged illegal and unconstitutional. 10. Mr. Suwalal Pahadiya, in reply, has submitted that as in terms of Rule 36 of the Rules, the Government of India is authorised to identify the posts in the establishments reserved for the persons with disabilities, the Notification dated 15.03.2007, being modeled on the recommendations of an Expert Committee, the challenge to the validity thereof is misplaced. As admittedly the petitioner did not fit in with the category of disabled persons identified for the purpose of reservation for the posts of Pharmacist under the Act and the Rules, his claim is wholly misconceived. 11. We have traversed the pleadings with the documents on record and have also extended due consideration to the rival submissions. 12. Section 32 of the Act provides that an appropriate Government shall identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability and at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the developments in technologies. 12. Section 32 of the Act provides that an appropriate Government shall identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability and at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the developments in technologies. In terms of Section 33, every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three percent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one percent each has to be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low visions; (ii) hearing impairment; and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability. The proviso thereto, however empowers appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the purview of Section 33, having regard to the type of work carried on in such department or establishment vide any notification, subject to such conditions, as may be specified therein. 13. Rule 36 of the Rules, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 73 of the Act, predicates that in every establishment three percent of the vacancies shall be reserved for persons or class of Persons with Disabilities of which one percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from the categories, as referred to in Section 33 of the Act, enumerated hereinabove, in the posts identified for each disability by the Government of India under Section 32 and such reservation has to be construed as horizontal reservation. The proviso thereto, is to the effect that where the nomenclature of any post in the State Government is different from the post in Government of India or any post in the State Government does not exist in any department of the Government of India, the matter would be referred to the Committee constituted under Rule 38 for identification of the equivalent post in the State Government. The Committee is required to identify the equivalent post on the basis of nature of job and responsibility of each post. 14. It is, thus, ex facie clear that as contemplated in Section 32 of the Act and as per Rule 36 of the Rules, the process for identification of the posts for each disability is to be undertaken by the Government of India. The eventualities in which the matter has to be referred to a Committee under Rule 38, is envisaged therein. 15. The eventualities in which the matter has to be referred to a Committee under Rule 38, is envisaged therein. 15. A bare perusal of the Notification dated 15.03.2007, demonstrates that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 32 of the Act, an Expert Committee had been constituted under the chairmanship of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which, in turn, had decided to set up one sub-committee for each of the three categories of disabilities, referred to in Section 33 of the Act. Accordingly, one sub-committee each for Orthopedically Handicapped, Hearing Handicapped and Visually Handicapped, had been set up, which made an in-depth study of various jobs performed in Government offices, public sector undertakings and autonomous bodies including universities. Eventually, the list of posts included in Group C was drawn up and identified to be suitable for persons with disabilities. Clause-6 of the Notification clarified that the list of posts was not an exhaustive one and that the Ministries/Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/autonomous bodies could further supplement the same. It is further patent on the face of the list, accompanying the Notification, that the post of Pharmacist is reserved for the categories of persons with disability impairing one leg or both legs. No person suffering from low vision, like the petitioner, has been contemplated therein for the benefit of reservation. In terms of the Notification therefore, exclusion of the petitioner from the purview of such reservation, cannot be faulted with. The Notification also cannot be repudiated to be wanting in competence, as would be apparent on a conjoint reading of Section 32 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules. To reiterate, clause-6 of the Notification clarifies that the list of posts identified suitable for persons with disabilities in Group 'C', is not an exhaustive one and that the concerned Ministries/Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/autonomous bodies, in their discretion, can supplement the same. 16. Our attention has not been drawn to any addition to the list, accompanying the Notification dated 15.03.2007, to include a candidate of low vision for availing the benefit of reservation under the Act and the Rules, qua the post of Pharmacist. We are, thus, not inclined to sustain the challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 15.03.2007. Noticeably, this Notification had been in force at the time when the recruitment process involved, was initiated in the year 2011. We are, thus, not inclined to sustain the challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 15.03.2007. Noticeably, this Notification had been in force at the time when the recruitment process involved, was initiated in the year 2011. The petitioner had participated therein without any demur. As the facts reveal, on the date of submission of the application form, the petitioner did not file the disability certificate, which he did subsequently. He had initially applied as a general category candidate. He assailed the validity of the Notification only after the process was complete and appointments were accorded to the selected candidates on 11.07.2012. The successful candidates have also not been impleaded as parties. Though, it is true that in terms of the Notification dated 15.03.2007, which is based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee/subcommittee, liberty was granted to the Ministries/Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/autonomous bodies to supplement the list, no enhancement thereto had been resorted to. Thus, on the date of initiation and conclusion of the selection process, the Notification dated 15.03.2007, was in force. On that count as well, the exercise undertaken, cannot be said to be illegal or invalid. Though, an endeavor has been made to bring on records the disability certificate and orders of a different forum, indicating that some candidates suffering with disability other than one leg/both legs disability, referred to in the Notification dated 15.03.2007, had been ordered to be appointed to the post of Pharmacist, we do not feel inclined, at this distinct point of time, to extend any weightage thereto in order to sustain the claim of the petitioner. 17. On a cumulative consideration of all above, we thus find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******