JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Rajnish Kumar for the U.P. Public Service Commission and perused the record. Through this petition, the petitioner, who is a Law Graduate and having 40% permanent disability in left upper limbs, has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to advertisement dated 29.07.2016 issued by the opposite party no.2 and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to provide 3% statutory reservation to the physically handicapped candidates in the ongoing recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), in view of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 as well as the Government Order dated 12.01.2011. However, learned counsel for the respondents have raised an objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in view of paragraph 38 of the judgment rendered in the case of Sarika Vs. State of U.P. & others, (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2217 , petitioner has a proper remedy on the administrative side either before the High Court or State Government. Paragraph 38 reads as under: - "38.There is no dispute between the parties, that the State government has not identified the judicial service, and the posts in judicial service for the purpose of reservation for physically handicapped persons. In Bal Mukund Shah's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that the provisions under Article 233, 234 and 235 for the recruitment to the post of District Judges and other civil judicial posts, fall in a different part of the Constitution, and that these provisions stand on their own and are independent of Part XIV which deal with services under the Union and the State. The Article 309 on its express terms is made subject to other provisions of the Constitution, and is circumscribed to the extent to which from its general field of operation carves out a separate and exclusive field for operation by the provisions of the Article dealing with Subordinate Judiciary as found in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution. The Article 309 on its express terms is made subject to other provisions of the Constitution, and is circumscribed to the extent to which from its general field of operation carves out a separate and exclusive field for operation by the provisions of the Article dealing with Subordinate Judiciary as found in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution. Article 233 and 234 provide for a complete code and thus Rule making power of the Governor as well as other powers of the State Legislature on the subject are excluded. Relying upon the concept of separation of powers between the legislature, execution and judiciary the Supreme Court held that the independent judiciary is the basis structure of constitution. The High Court can alone recognise the vacancies and the reservation even if provided by the State Act under Article 16(4) of the Act. The reservation in judicial services by the State without consulting the High Court or without concurrent recommendation of the High Court is an encroachment on such exclusive powers." This apart, we have been informed that the process of selection to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has already commenced and even the preliminary examination has also been held. So, at this stage it would not be proper to interfere in the selection process. In view of the above mentioned facts, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.