ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur which is an order passed in revision filed by the petitioner dismissing the same. The aforesaid revision arose out of an order dated 5.3.2012 passed by the Collector, Katni in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner participated in an advertisement which was issued for the recruitment of Contract Teacher Grade-II and III in the year 2006. A select list was also prepared and the objections were invited by the Appeal Committee, the meeting of which was convened on 13.7.2006. The objections were invited up to 10.7.2006 and on 13.7.2006 a final list along with waiting list was published. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 who had not filed any objection within the prescribed date, filed the same subsequently challenging the select list on the ground of percentage of handicapped person and has also submitted that the respondent No.4 is more meritorious as compared to the petitioner. Thus, without filing any objection before the Appeal Committee, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 who disallowed the claim made by the respondent No.4 on the ground that the appeal has been preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation and also on the ground that the certified copy of the order has not been filed which is under challenge. On merit also no case was found in favour of respondent No.4. The appeal was dismissed and the order was challenged in revision before the respondent No.3 which was finally allowed and the case was remanded back to the respondent No.1 to decide the case on merits. 4. When the order passed by respondent No.3 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.2256/2009, this Court vide order dated 17.6.2009 stayed the operation of the order and subsequently on 4.5.2011 this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to Additional Collector to decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of two months. After remand the respondent No.1 allowed the same and directed the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Vijayraghavgarh to issue an appointment order in respect of respondent No.4 for the post of Contract Teacher Grade II. After remand the respondent No.1 allowed the same and directed the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Vijayraghavgarh to issue an appointment order in respect of respondent No.4 for the post of Contract Teacher Grade II. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner also preferred Writ Petition No.4015/2012 and this Court directed the petitioner to file revision before the respondent No.3 to avail alternative remedy. The revision submitted by the petitioner was also got dismissed by the respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner's contention is that in the select list it is apparent that the name of the petitioner finds place in the category of selected candidate for OBC category for orthopedically handicapped quota. On 25.7.2006 the final list was published in which the name of the petitioner finds place at Sr. No.1. It is further submitted that although the respondent No.4 claimed himself to be a handicapped person but it is only on 21.8.2006 that he obtained a certificate of disability from the District Medical Board, Jabalpur and after receiving the aforesaid certificate, the respondent No.4 directly filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 challenging the selection process and also claimed the post on the ground of percentage of disability which was 35.4% as compared to the petitioner whose percentage of disability was to the extent of 33.52%, thus as submitted by the petitioner the case of the respondent No.4 was that he was having higher percentage of disability than the petitioner and also that he preferred an appeal after a period of eight months from the date of issuance of the select list, thus, it is submitted by the petitioner that there was no reason for the respondents to consider the claim of the respondent No.4 and his application has been wrongly entertained by the Collector which was filed much beyond the period of limitation. 6. The main plank of argument as advanced by the counsel for the petitioner was that after the prescribed period of limitation, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Collector and there was no reason for the Collector to entertain the aforesaid application without issuing notice to the other party specially when there was a question of delay also involved in the case which was mandatory in nature. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the respondents and the impugned orders have been passed only as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The respondents have also submitted that the respondent No.4 has submitted the disability certificate along with his application and have further submitted that even in the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board for Contract Teachers Grade II and III, the respondent No.4 had obtained 70.81% marks whereas the petitioner had secured 67.03% marks and as such his category being of blind category cannot be equated with the petitioners' disability category which was orthopedically handicapped. 8. It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner's appointment was not made because on merits he was entitled to be appointed but his appointment was made only on account of a clerical error committed by the concerned clerk who had in the record entered the disability of the respondent No.4 as visually handicapped instead of orthopedically handicapped and since the post was for the orthopedically handicapped person, the respondent No.4's name was not at all considered and the petitioner was selected despite securing lesser marks than the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 had secured 70.81% marks whereas the petitioner had secured 67.03% marks. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From the record, it is apparent that so far as the disability is concerned, the respondent No.4 had 35.05% disability whereas the petitioner had 33.53% disability only. It is also observed that the respondent No.4 was erroneously mentioned as visually handicapped person despite the fact that he had produced the disability certificate describing him as orthopedically handicapped person and this fact has also not been denied by the petitioner in any counter affidavit/rejoinder. So far as the contention of the petitioner that on the date of consideration of respondent No.4's application he was not having disability certificate is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the application was submitted by the respondent No.4 on 12.6.2006 whereas he was given the disability certificate on 29.7.2003 for a period of three years, thus his disability certificate was valid till 28.7.2006. Hence on 12.6.2006, when he submitted his application, he had a valid disability certificate and the last date of submission of the application was 14.6.2006. Thus it cannot be said that the respondent No.4 had no valid disability certificate at the time when the application was to be submitted by him. It is an admitted fact that subsequently when his disability certificate expired he was again given the permanent disability certificate on 21.8.2006 by the Medical Board. In such circumstances, the petitioner's contention regarding validity of disability certificate cannot be accepted. Even otherwise as has been stated by the respondents on affidavit that the selection of the petitioner was based on inadvertent and bona fide mistake of entry made by the Computer Operator whereby the petitioner was kept under blind category and as soon as the aforesaid mistake came to the knowledge of the respondents, the same was rectified and the respondent No.4 was appointed while the name of the petitioner was removed from the select list as has rightly been observed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out by the petitioner and the petition deserves dismissal. The impugned order which is just and proper does not call for any interference. The petition is hereby dismissed.