C. S. Karnan, J.: The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. Both the below mentioned petitioners are Physically Handicapped and belong to the Exempted Category who appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test in the year 2012 as under the Physically Handicapped Category. Both petitioners had well performed in the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination held in the year 2012. 2. The respondents had declared the result wherein they are not empanelled. The petitioners further added that they had applied under the Right to Information Act 2005 and requested the respondent to furnish the particular marks obtained in the written test, interview and answer scripts. The respondent Board had sent a letter dated 18.1.2016 and supplied to the 1st petitioner herein with attested copies of the digitized data of OMR sheet of Teacher Eligibility Test which was held in the year 2010 but without the copy of the question booklet and copy of the answer key to the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner had supplied information on 3.3.2016 through the 3rd respondent herein that the original OMR sheet of the Teacher Eligibility Test 2012 has been destroyed and the last cut off marks obtained by the last empanelled candidate in the Exempted Category, Physically Handicapped general category is 36.96%. However, the marks obtained by the 1st petitioner was not disclosed. The aggrieved 1st petitioner had rendered an appeal to the 3rd respondent herein against the incomplete information furnished on 18.1.2016, the said appeal is pending enquiry. 3. The petitioner further added that the 3rd respondent, Education Board had informed the 2nd petitioner herein by a letter dated 17.2.2015 explaining the Exempted Category, Physically Handicapped Category, the last cut off marks fixed in the Teacher Eligibility Test is 43.04% for the year 2012, so far as the rest of the questions are concerned, the Board did not supply the information regarding marks obtained by the 2nd petitioner herein. Further it was stated that the OMR sheet is destroyed, as such the respondents have not furnished the required particulars sought by the petitioner. Both the petitioners have come under the Physically Handicapped Category but the respondents had given a different answer, as such the respondents had committed a laps, hence the above writ petitioner has been filed. 4. The highly competent counsel, Mr. Both the petitioners have come under the Physically Handicapped Category but the respondents had given a different answer, as such the respondents had committed a laps, hence the above writ petitioner has been filed. 4. The highly competent counsel, Mr. A.K. Nath appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had attended the Teachers Eligibility Test for the year 2012 on 31.3.2013. As per the result announced by the respondents, the petitioners were denied selection. Hence, the aggrieved petitioners have made separate applications under the Right to Information Act to the Information Officer. However, the Information Officer had not furnished adequate particulars. Therefore, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Commissioner, to the Right to Information Act, which is pending enquiry. 5. Learned counsel further submits that both the petitioners are exempted category, being Physically Handicapped. Both petitioners are successful candidates, therefore, the respondents wantonly and deliberately have avoided to furnish the correct particulars, hence the very competent counsel entreats the Court to give suitable direction in order to provide an appointment so as to provide such an appointment order for the said petitioners. 6. The learned counsel Mr. Ratul Biswas appearing for the Board submits that for the recruitment of teachers notification was issued in the year 2012, thereafter an examination was conducted, subsequently the successful candidates were appointed after issuing the necessary appointment orders. The above mentioned are working in the respondent school for the past two years. As such the writ petition becomes infructuous, further the petitioners have obtained below the cut off marks, therefore, they are disqualified for obtaining appointment orders. From the above discussion the view of this Court are as under: (1) The respondents had given information under the Right to Information Act to the 1st petitioner that the exempted category, the physically handicapped, had fixed cut off marks as 36.96% for the Teachers Eligibility Test, for the year 2012, similarly the 2nd petitioner was furnished information under the Right to Information Act, that the last cut off marks as 43.04%, in response the candidates had given different answers which belong to the same category i.e. the exempted handicapped. (2) The respondents especially the Right to Information Officer, had not furnished the required particulars as sought by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, as such there is a short coming, laps, lack of service, irregularity and gross violation. (2) The respondents especially the Right to Information Officer, had not furnished the required particulars as sought by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, as such there is a short coming, laps, lack of service, irregularity and gross violation. Therefore, the physically handicapped petitioners are entitled to receive appointment orders for the said post besides they belong to the minority by religion. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for either sides and on perusing the annexed documents, the view mentioned above in 1 and 2, this Court directs the respondents to reveal the vacant position in the concerned district and Educational Department on 14.12.2016 and on compliance without fail. The Court directs the Registry to post the above case on 14.12.2016 under the caption of a partly heard case. 8. Accordingly it pertains to an interim direction. To be treated on urgent basis.