JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of lady supervisor in Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and further to quash memo dated 19.07.2010 whereby the respondent no. 2 issued direction for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor without giving reservation to the extent of 3 % in the light of mandate of the provisions enshrined in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; and to declare that the respondents have no power to deny the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of initial appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika the petitioner had not completed the age of 18 years. 2. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sewika for Karanghati Centre under Littipara Block on 02.03.1983. In the year 2007, an advertisement was published inviting application on the post of Lady Supervisor in Santhal Pargana Division, in which, 25% quota was reserved to be filled-up amongst the Anganbari Sewikas. The petitioner, having the requisite academic qualification of Graduation and having required work experience of Anganbari Sewika for at least 10 years, applied and appeared in the examination conducted for the said post. It has further been averred that vide impugned memo dated 19.07.2010 several persons were directed to be appointed except the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner enquired the matter wherefrom she could know that she has been denied appointment on the ground that she was below 18 years of age on the date, when she was appointed as Anganbari Sewika on 02.03.1983. 3. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, A.C to learned G.P II for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the last selected candidate in general category has acquired only 142 marks and the petitioner has acquired 126 marks. But the petitioner, who belongs to handicapped quota ought to have been given 3 % reservation in that category and she was coming under the zone of consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the last selected candidate in general category has acquired only 142 marks and the petitioner has acquired 126 marks. But the petitioner, who belongs to handicapped quota ought to have been given 3 % reservation in that category and she was coming under the zone of consideration. It has further been submitted that no other candidate falling in that category has secured more marks than the petitioner, hence the respondents are bound to select the petitioner as Lady Supervisor. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 every establishment has to appoint such percentage of vacancies not less than 3 % for persons or class of persons with disability. So far the issue of appointment as Anganbari Sewika below the age of 18 years and consequent appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor is concerned, the same has been considered in several judgments delivered by this Hon’ble Court and one of the leading decision is in the case of Baby Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in W.P (S) No. 3810 of 2010, wherein the Hon’ble Court in unequivocal terms has enunciated that the reasons for denial of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lady Supervisor on the ground of appointment of petitioner on Anganbari Sewika below 18 years is not sustainable. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of selection for the post of Sevika, the petitioner was below the age of 18 years, therefore, as per the direction contained in letter dated 26.03.2008 of the Government of Jharkhand, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on the post of Lady Supervisor. So far fulfillment of provision of giving 3 % reservation for specially challenged persons is concerned, as per Guidelines of notification dated 7.11.2007, in case of non-availability of suitable candidate relaxation may be given in the standard fixed for the selections. Since the petitioner or other candidate falling in that category was not found fit for the post in the question, no person was appointed in that category. 6. Since the petitioner or other candidate falling in that category was not found fit for the post in the question, no person was appointed in that category. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of documents and decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i).Since appointment of the petitioner in the year 1983, she diligently served as Anganwari Sewika. Neither any objection was raised with regard to her date of birth nor her appointment was ever held illegal by the State-authorities and she served with the department with full knowledge of the authorities concerned regarding his date of birth and date of joining. (ii).In the year 2007, an advertisement was published inviting application for appointment on the post of “Lady Supervisor”, in which, 25 % quota were reserved for Anganwari Sewika, who have served for at least 10 years and who possesses a degree of Graduation OR, who have completed 15 years of Service and possesses matriculation degree. Besides that eligibility criteria, academic and experience, no other criteria was there for selection on the post in question. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has fulfilled all these criteria but she was denied appointment on the ground that she did not complete 18 years of age at the time of her appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika, in support thereof, though in counter affidavit one letter dated 26.03.2008 has been annexed wherein it has been stated that if the sevika is found below 18 years of age at the time of appointment as Sevika, her appointment shall be declared illegal. But, the question remains to be decided whether it is suffice to deny appointment of a candidate, who have successfully served for more than two and half decades and no objection was raised ever before. (iii).Undoubtedly, the post of Lady Supervisor is altogether a different post from that the post of Anganwari Sewika. Further, it is not a promotional post rather a totally new post, published through Public Advertisement. It is well settled principle of law, no new criteria can be added or omitted when the selection process is over. (iii).Undoubtedly, the post of Lady Supervisor is altogether a different post from that the post of Anganwari Sewika. Further, it is not a promotional post rather a totally new post, published through Public Advertisement. It is well settled principle of law, no new criteria can be added or omitted when the selection process is over. (iv).Here, it would not be necessary to discuss more on the issue of reservation of 3 % for physically challenged persons, as in the advertisement itself they have included the mandatory provision of law. Further, the respondents have denied appointment of the petitioner not on this ground rather on a totally non est and untenable ground. (v).The same and similar issue, arising out of the same vacancy, another candidate knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3810 of 2010, which has been decided in favour of the writ petitioner and as per the statement made at bar, the State has not challenged the same in appeal. Hence, the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of parity. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the reason assigned by the respondents i.e since she was below 18 years of age at the time of appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika, for not appointing the petitioner has no reason to sustain, accordingly the same is quashed and the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lady Supervisor giving benefit of 3 % reservation, as enshrined in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, without disturbing the positions of persons who have already been appointed. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Writ petition allowed.