ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the purpose of appointment to the post of Technical Helper in the Physically Handicapped category under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), and Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules’), and by according the benefit of 3% reservation under the Rules of 2011. The respondents issued Advertisement No. JVVNL/Karmik/ Rectt/01/2018-19 for recruitment of Technical Helpers. In the advertisement, no posts were reserved for the physically challenged persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners, made submissions that in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the respondents were bound to provide for 3% reservation for Physically Challenged Persons and the action on their part in not providing for any reservation in this regard is contrary to the provisions and spirit of the Act and the Rules and, therefore, the respondents be directed to operate the quota and grant appointment to the petitioners under that said quota. Learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the provisions of the Act and judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8084/2007, decided on 24.02.2014), made submissions that the competent authority under the Act, had indicated the posts for which the reservation under the Act was directed to be provided by identifying specific posts with specific disability and the posts of Technical Helper does not find mention in the said order and, therefore, there was no occasion to grant such reservation. It is submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. This Court in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra), inter alia, laid down as under:- “9. Having considered the nature of the duties and type of work to be carried out by the incumbent holding the post of ‘Technical Helper’. This Court in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra), inter alia, laid down as under:- “9. Having considered the nature of the duties and type of work to be carried out by the incumbent holding the post of ‘Technical Helper’. Keeping in view the type of work and nature of duties attached to the posts in the Subordinate Technical Cadre, the competent authority has decided not to extend the benefit of concession/reservation to the persons with disabilities, as indicated in the annexure annexed to communication dated 10th May, 2002, which includes the post of ‘Technical Helper’. It was in the background of these facts, a note was appended to the advertisement dated 29th October, 2006 for not providing concession/reservation to the post of Technical Helper. 10. In view of the factual matrix and the decision taken by the competent authority having regard to the nature and type of duties attached to the post of ‘Technical Helper’, the action of the respondents, in not extending the benefit of concession/reservation to the physically handicapped persons, cannot be faulted. 11. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ application is devoid of any substance and therefore, merits rejection.” In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra), the issue raised by the petitioners already stands concluded. So far as judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Om Prakash Vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2937/2016, decided on 23.03.2017 at Jaipur Bench is concerned, in the said case, without taking benefit of reservation, the petitioner therein got selected against unreserved posts, thereafter when his services were terminated on account of his physical incapacity, in those circumstances, the Court directed constitution of a Expert Medical Board so that physical incapacity of the petitioner could be adjudged and thereafter decide the case of the petitioner therein. The facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable, as the petitioners herein are seeking directions to the respondents to operate quota under the provisions of the Act and the Rules whereas in the case of Om Prakash (supra), the petitioner was selected against the unreserved vacancies, as such the prayer and cause being totally different the judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the discussion above, as the issue has already been concluded in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra), no directions as sought can be issued. There is no substance in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.