JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. The respondent 'Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter 'RPSC') issued employment notification no. 2/2011-12 for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor/Senior Demonstrator in different disciplines under Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1962'). Under the aforesaid employment notification, amongst the vacancies for the post of Assistant Professor in General Surgery (APGS), one was reserved for persons suffering from physical disability. Vide corrigendum letter no. 4/2012-13 this was enhanced to two. 2. The petitioner having passed the MBBS examination and having completed the compulsory rotating internship (one year programme) was awarded a degree in MBBS in 1992. Subsequently, he acquired a degree as Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) in 1996 and thereafter Master of Surgery (General Surgery) (MS) in 2001-all from the University of Rajasthan. The petitioner is orthopaedically handicapped having suffered post polio paralysis of the left lower limb. A certificate of disability evidencing more than 40% disability has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is also registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council, Jaipur effective 21.07.1992 and so certified. These facts are not in dispute. 3. Pursuant to the employment notification dated 13.05.2011 the petitioner applied for appointment on one of the two post of APGS reserved for persons suffering physical disability. He passed the screening test held on 10.07.2012 and was called for interview on 10.05.2013 along with all original documents. He complied and appeared for the interview. All requisite documents of eligibility were submitted. However in the select list dated 23.05.2013 the petitioner did not find a place. Hence this petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that aside of other grounds agitated in support of the writ petition, in terms of the information received by the petitioner from RPSC on 09.07.2013 under the Right to Information Act, it transpires that the petitioner had obtained 47 marks in the interview for reasons of which RPSC with reference of the purportedly minimum qualifying 50 marks for open category candidate at the interview illegally found him unsuitable and rejected his candidature. Counsel submitted on instructions of the petitioner who is in Court, that he is however now abandoning the issue of the illegality of RPSC determining minimum qualifying marks in the interview, 50 for open category candidates and 45 for reserved category (SC/ST/OBC) when no such provision obtains or either in the relevant rules i.e. Rules of 1962 nor was set out in the advertisement. Counsel then submitted that even with 47 marks, the petitioner a person suffering physical disability was entitled to appointment to the post of APGS on one of the two seats in the quota reserved for physically disabled persons, both of which have remained unfilled. This, counsel submitted, because the petitioner was entitled to be treated at par with reserve category candidates (who as per RPSC's full Commission decision require 45 marks at the interview to be found to be suitable for APGS) for ascertaining his suitability. 5. Counsel submitted that the Apex Court in [ (2004) 10 SCC 191 ] A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. has held that since the quota for the physically disabled is in the nature of horizontal reservation, it cuts across all vertical reservations categories such as SC, ST, OBC and General, consequent to which the physically disabled candidates of all categories are entitled to similar standards of evaluation for ascertaining their suitability, as those in the reserved category are. The Apex Court has held that physically disabled candidates cutting across all vertical categories SC, ST, OBC and General constitute a homogeneous class members of which are entitled to similar treatment. And with physically disabled SC/ST/OBC candidates having a lower threshold for ascertainment of their suitability, general category physically handicapped candidates would be entitled for evaluation of their suitability on the same threshold. As were it not so, it would tantamount to an invidious discrimination against open category physically handicapped candidates seeking public employment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. As were it not so, it would tantamount to an invidious discrimination against open category physically handicapped candidates seeking public employment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of 2012 (195) DLT 102 Anamol Bhandari (Minor) Through his Father/natural Guardian v. Delhi Technological University (Delhi)(D.B.) has also concluded in Para 22 that- "All the aforesaid clinchingly demonstrates that the people suffering from disabilities are equally socially backward, if not more, as those belonging to SC/ST categories and therefore, as per the Constitutional mandates, they are entitled to at least the same benefit of relaxation as given to SC/ST candidates." 6. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court is binding on all authorities across India including the RPSC under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is the law of the land. Consequently, at least effective 19.03.2002 when the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (Supra) was rendered, physically handicapped open category candidate being evaluated for suitability for public employment were entitled to be kept at par with the standards notified for physically handicapped reserved category candidates at any/all selections. It was submitted that the full commission of respondent-RPSC at its meeting of 17.06.2015 recognised the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (Supra) and has provided that open category physically handicaped candidates were to be evaluated for suitability at par with physically disabled reserved category candidates when being considered for public employment. Counsel however submitted that the said order has to be construed only as, explanatory/clarificatory in nature and will relate to the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (Supra) i.e. on 19.03.2002. And that would be State of law when the vacancies for the post of APGS were notified pursuant to the advertisement no. 2/2011-12 dated 13.05.2011. Counsel further submitted that under the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 2000 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 2000') vacancies reserved in the quota of persons suffering with disability are to be carried toward for three years. 2/2011-12 dated 13.05.2011. Counsel further submitted that under the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 2000 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 2000') vacancies reserved in the quota of persons suffering with disability are to be carried toward for three years. Thus the two vacancies in the quota of persons with disabilities for the post of APGS as advertised under employment notification dated 13.05.2011, with no such candidate having been selected, were mandatorily carried forward upto the year 2014-15. It has been submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court on 01.07.2014, well within the time when the vacancies on the post of APGS in the quota of persons suffering with physical disability were available to being filled up by suitable candidates. In the situation, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of consideration thereto on his merit, having obtained 47 marks in the interview against the minimum of 45 marks for reserved category candidates for finding them suitable for appointment by RPSC as APGS against vacancies of 2011-12. It was further submitted no recruitment to the post of APGS has since been in any event, made and the vacanices in issue for physically handicapped candidate on the post of APGS are still available. 7. Mr. Amit Kuri appearing for the respondent-RPSC submitted that diluted standards for the evaluation of General category candidates suffering with disability at par with the standards for determining the suitability of reserved category candidates has been made effective 17.06.2015 when the full commission of RPSC so decided. That decision however cannot operate retrospectively as for the vacancies for 2011-12 advertised vide employment notification dated 13.05.2011. Mr. Kuri however is not in a position to deny that the petitioner was awarded 47 marks in the interview held on 10.05.2013, for the post of APGS as a candidate with physical disability against the quota of two seats reserved for such candidates. Counsel is also not in a position to deny that for ascertaining the suitability of reserved candidates at the very same interview, securing 45 marks was the there should. Counsel has not, as he could not, deny that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person suffering more than 40% disability in the left limb for reason of post Polio Paralysis. Heard Considered. 8. Counsel has not, as he could not, deny that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person suffering more than 40% disability in the left limb for reason of post Polio Paralysis. Heard Considered. 8. It is not in dispute that having been successful in the screening test, the petitioner appeared at the interview for selection to the post of APGS in the category of physically handicapped against the two posts in the RPSC notified quota for such persons. That the petitioner acquired 47 marks at the interview for the post in issue is also not in dispute. It is also admitted that in terms of the full commission decision of the RPSC, while general category candidates were required to obtain 50 marks at the interview for being found suitable, reserved category candidates were required to obtain 45 marks to be considered suitable. 9. The question that requires determination is whether in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (Supra) and that of Delhi High Court, decision in the case of Anamol Bhandari (Minor) Through his Father/natural Guardian (supra), the petitioner could be reasonably found to be unsuitable for appointment as APGS against one of the two posts reserved for the physically handicapped persons despite having secured more marks than required by reserved category candidates to be found suitable for the post of APGS. 10. I find no force in the contention of Mr. Amit Kuri appearing for the respondent-RPSC that only effective 17.06.2015 when the full commission of RPSC took a decision to place general category candidate suffering with physical disability at par and assess them for suitability on the lower threshold determined for reserved category candidates, would such parity be enforceable by the Court. This is for the reason that a decision of the full commission of the RPSC cannot override law determined by the Apex Court in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (Supra). This is for the reason that a decision of the full commission of the RPSC cannot override law determined by the Apex Court in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (Supra). Linder Article 142 of the Constitution of India is the law declared by the Apex Court is binding on all Courts and public authorities in India as held in the case of [ (2008) 13 SCC 1 ] Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries where it has been reiterated that law laid down by the Apex Court prevails over circulars and orders passed by the executive and administrative authority. It is well settled that the Courts discover law and not make law. All law declared by the Apex Court is thus retrospective going back to the date it was promulgated by the legislature unless the Apex Court makes its ruling prospective or issues directions filling up the gaps in law. Such a case of prospective overruling does not obtain in the present case. The Full Commission decision of RPSC thus has to be accordingly construed as clarificatory/explanatory for otherwise it would be in the crosshair of law of the land and liable to be quashed. The evaluation of petitioner's suitability as a physically handicapped candidate for the post of APGS pursuant to the employment notification dated 13.05.2011 will thus have to be made as per the decision in the case of A.I. Confederation of the Blind and Anr. (Supra). Thereunder the petitioner a general category physically handicapped was to be evaluated for suitability for the post of APGS at par with the RPSC's declared standard of suitability for reserved category candidate for the post of APGS which indisputably is 45. The petitioner with 47 marks in the interview held on 10.05.2013 for post of APGS (in the quota of physically disabled) was thus suitable for appointment on the said post against the vacancies of 2011-12. The petitioner approached this court well before the expiry of three years during which the vacancies in the quota of physically handicapped persons were carried forward under Rule 5(4) of Rules of 2000. In the circumstances the petitioner cannot be denied relief merely for reason of three years having elapsed since the appointments to the post of APGS under employment notification dated 13.05.2011. In the circumstances the petitioner cannot be denied relief merely for reason of three years having elapsed since the appointments to the post of APGS under employment notification dated 13.05.2011. Further counsel for the RPSC did not dispute the assertion of counsel for the petitioner that none of the vacancies of 2011-12, in the quota for physically handicapped have been yet filed up in the subsequent years and such vacancies are still available. 11. Consequently, I would allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be forthwith considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in General Surgery against any of the two vacancies of 2011-12 for persons suffering physical disability as advertised under employment notification dated 13.05.2011. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits except actual pay. 12. The requisite exercise for compliance with the order of this Court be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.