JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Post Graduate Teacher after evaluating his examination papers in the category of physically handicapped candidate (PH). 2. The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement published for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Teachers in +2 Schools, the petitioner applied specifically filling up the required colomn 9 (b) of the application that he is physically challenged candidate. But, admit card was not issued on the ground that he is over-aged. Aggrieved thereof, he represented before State Disabled Commissioner, whereupon though admit card was issued but again in the admit card the Physically Handicapped category i.e. PH, in which the petitioner belongs was left out. However, petitioner participated in the examination but when the result was published the name of the petitioner was not found in the select list. However, the petitioner downloaded his result from the website, wherefrom he could know that in Paper I, he has obtained 43.5 marks and in Paper II he has obtained 170 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the office of respondent no. 2 where he could gather information that physically handicapped candidates having less than 170 marks have been appointed and the petitioner has been left out discriminately. 3. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishikesh Giri, A.C to learned G.P II for the respondents-State and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondents-JAC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement says that there shall be 3 % horizontal reservation for physically challenged candidates. Hence, out of total vacancies of 230, eight posts falls under the reserved category of physically handicapped. Further, the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Category and as per the averments made in the counter affidavit itself no candidate in MBC (PH) has been selected. Therefore, appropriate direction may be issued for appointment of the petitioner under appropriate category. 5. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that against total seats of 115 (non-teacher quota, in which, the petitioner belongs) four seats were reserved for disabled persons and they were offered appointments, the details of which has been shown in tabular form in the counter affidavit, which is reproduced herein below: Sl. 5. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that against total seats of 115 (non-teacher quota, in which, the petitioner belongs) four seats were reserved for disabled persons and they were offered appointments, the details of which has been shown in tabular form in the counter affidavit, which is reproduced herein below: Sl. No. Class Seats Marks a. General 1 248 b. Backward Class 2 248 204 c. Schedule Tribe 1 142 6. But the petitioner has secured only 170 marks, which were not the adequate to secure position in select list. It has further been submitted that among these four seats two seats were reserved for Visually Handicapped (VH) candidate; one seat was reserved for Hearing Handicapped (HH) category and rest one seat was reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) candidate and accordingly the four candidates were given appointment and they are now working on their respective with utmost satisfaction of the authorities. Besides, the petitioner has not made party to them in the array of party-respondents, hence, the writ application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed in limine. Furthermore, after that vacancies many vacancies has been published and appointment has been done hence at this distance of time it would be a futile exercise to rake up the settled matter. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleading available on record and on close scrutiny of documents available on record, it appears that in pursuance to Advertisement No. 74/2011 for appointment on the post of ‘Post Graduate Teacher’, the petitioner applied against Hindi Subject under non-teacher quota in which there were 115 seats. Out of these 115 seats, 3 % seats i.e. four seats were reserved for Physically Challenged, however, the petitioner claims that it should be eight as there were 230 seats but it would be pertinent to mention here since petitioner falls under non-teachers category hence the authority did not commit any error of earmarking only four seats for Physically Handicap and rest 50 % seats of 115 were under the quota of working teachers category. In the preceding paragraph, the tabular chart explicitly shows that the petitioner could not secure adequate marks among the handicapped candidates and further in supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents has categorically made statement that out of these four seats --two seats were reserved for VH candidate; one seat was reserved for HH category and rest one seat was reserved for OH candidate and accordingly the four candidates have been given appointment. In the writ application though the petitioner has made statement that physically handicapped candidate having less than 170 marks have been appointed but the petitioner has been left out but it is not supported by any documentary evidence; mere making a bald statement would be of no help to the petitioner. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any reason to issue writ of mandamus upon the respondents for making appointment of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.