JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. In this appeal, the appellants inter alia have assailed the validity of order dated 01.09.2016 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner against the reserved seat to undergo the Master's Degree in Sociology while providing same relaxation as has been provided to other categories with regard to the qualifying marks. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the Admission Notification of 2015 was issued by Dean Academic Affairs, University of Jammu dated 04.07.2015, by which applications were invited for admission to various academic programmes of University/Offsite Campuses/Affiliated Colleges for the academic session 2015-16. Respondent who admittedly belongs to the physically handicapped category submitted her application in response to said notification for admission to Master Degree in Sociology. However, the petitioner was not given admission in the aforesaid course on the ground that she has failed to secure minimum marks which are prescribed for General Category Candidates as well as other category candidates namely Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the aforesaid factual background respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition before learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.09.2016 disposed of the writ petition in the terms stated supra. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no direction could have been issued to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 by granting her relaxation in rules. It is submitted that there is no provision for relaxation of rules so far as candidates belonging to physically challenged categories are concerned. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 who has appeared on advance notice invited intention of this Court to the Advertisement Notification for admission to various academic programmes and has pointed out that no criteria for selection has been mentioned in the Advertisement Notification and the candidates who belong to physically handicapped category cannot be equated with the candidates belonging to other categories and therefore the same yardstick cannot be applied in respect of a candidate who belongs to physically handicapped category for admission to the course in question as no benchmark has been prescribed in the Advertisement Notification. 3. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. From close scrutiny of the admission notification of 2015 it is evident that no criteria for selection has been prescribed so far as candidates belonging to physically handicapped categories are concerned. Obviously a candidate who belongs to physically handicapped category cannot be equated with candidates belonging to General category candidates and his case for admission cannot be considered which is prescribed for admission to General Category candidates. Learned Single Judge while passing ad interim direction, directed that one post of M.A. Sociology shall be kept vacant. In the absence of any criteria fixed for admission to physically challenged category candidates and in view of categorical stand taken by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the one seat in Master Degree Programme is lying vacant, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal by modifying the order dated 01.09.2016 and direct that the case of the petitioner shall be considered on the basis of inter se merit of the candidates belonging to physically handicapped category. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two weeks by passing a speaking order from the date of receipt of a certified copy of order passed today. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of along with connected MP.