Judgment 1. The cause shown for condonation of delay is good and sufficient. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. 2. This Special Appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26.11.2013, by which he has allowed the writ petition filed by a disabled person, suffering from locomotor disability (loss of one leg), aggrieved with his non-appointment, despite his selection, to the post of Agriculture Officer, against the two posts reserved, in selection for 96 posts of Agriculture Officer, for disabled persons, in the advertisement dated 05.07.2008, by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, for selection. 3. Learned Single Judge found that the petitioner (respondent before us) is an OBC candidate, who had applied for the post of Agriculture Officer as a physically handicapped person, duly supported by certificate of permanent disability, evidencing 40% disability, owing to loss of one leg. On the result of selections declared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the petitioner found that recommendation of only one differently abled person has been made from amongst the handicapped candidates, while the petitioner was the second most meritorious candidate in the category of handicapped persons. It was alleged that he was wrongly placed, in the waiting list, at serial No.33. Relying on the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (P.W.D. Act, 1995) and the Rajasthan Employment of Disabled Persons Rules, 2000, he challenged his non-appointment on the ground that the State Government, in its requisition to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, could not have sub-categorized the posts for locomotor disability into two, namely, one reserved for One Leg Disability (OL), and one for One Armed Disability (OA). 4. Learned Single Judge observed that by an interim order, one post in the cadre of Agriculture Officer was directed to be kept vacant. The State Government had no authority under the Rules to subcategorize the post reserved for locomotor disability, into two, and thereafter, deny the petitioner appointment, on the ground that since one person suffering from locomotor disability of one leg (OL) was selected, the petitioner could not be selected, and was not entitled for appointment. 5. It was found by learned Single Judge that only one person with one leg disability, after sub-categorizing the locomotor disability, was appointed, the other vacancy was carried forward. 5. It was found by learned Single Judge that only one person with one leg disability, after sub-categorizing the locomotor disability, was appointed, the other vacancy was carried forward. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, with directions that the petitioner, as a second meritorious candidate in the category of differently disabled persons, was entitled to be appointed to the second post of Agriculture Officer, and issued directions that he will be given appointment, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.07.2008, to undergo two years' probation, and was also be entitled to notional benefits, to be placed at par with other candidates. 6. This Special Appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge on the ground that sub-categorization was made in pursuance to the requisition made by the State Government. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government states that the State Government has decided to comply with the directions issued by learned Single Judge, and that, vide a letter issued by the Joint Director Agriculture (Administration), Agriculture Commissionerate, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 9.5.2014, the State Government has decided not to file an appeal against the judgment. 8. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is a selecting Body. Once the Government has accepted the judgment, and has intimated the Rajasthan Public Service Commission with its decision for not filing an appeal, and to recommend his name for appointment, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission may not be allowed to maintain the appeal. Even otherwise on merits, we find that the sub-categorization was not permissible under the P.W.D. Act of 1995 and the Rules of 2000 made by the State Government. The vacancy reserved for differently abled persons is not allowed to be subcategorized for denying appointment to an eligible person falling in the category of differently abled person, under the P.W.D. Act of 1995 and the Rules of 2000, and to carry over the vacancy to the next year. 9. This Special Appeal is consequently, dismissed.