JUDGMENT : B.B. MANGALMURTI, J. 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8th March, 2017 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing her prayer for appointment under VH category. 2. The short fact of the case is that Jharkhand Academic Council issued an Advertisement No. 93 of 2011 dated 12th October, 2011 inviting application for appointment of Assistant Teacher in upgraded secondary schools against which the appellant applied in the category of subject Urdu. The total number of 134 vacancies were shown under different categories that include vacancy for unreserved, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, extremely backward class and backward class. The appellant applied and after getting admit card, she appeared at the examination. The further case is that appellant being visually handicapped (V.H.) had a medical certificate of about 40% visually handicapped in the nature of permanent disability. Appellant also being physically handicapped due to polio in both the legs for which Medical Board, Godda had issued a certificate showing her 70% of permanent disability. After declaration of result, appellant did not find her name in the final list of successful candidate in the category of physically handicapped. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant that out of 134 vacancies in Urdu subject, 4 seats were reserved for physically handicapped persons, 2 seats for visually handicapped, 1 seat for hearing impairment and 1 seat for O.H. (locomotor disability). The appellant was 40% visual disable and she has secured 181 marks but her name was not included in the final list of successful candidate. The admitted position is that appellant was declared successful when the result was published at the first instance by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi but later on the council made variation and alteration in the number of vacancies earmarked for physically handicapped category under visually handicapped (V.H.) hearing impairment (H.H.) and locomotor disability (O.H.). The appellant had submitted her preference under O.H. locomotor disability and she was declared successful but after alteration in the vacancy position, respondent-authorities without inviting fresh preference under the physically handicapped quota, the final results were published. The appellant was also under visually handicapped quota and one seat was also vacant in spite of that the appellant was deprived from appointment on that quota of post. 4. The appellant was also under visually handicapped quota and one seat was also vacant in spite of that the appellant was deprived from appointment on that quota of post. 4. The appellant submitted a representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand and to the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council but no action was taken on it. Learned counsel submitted that the persons with disability are governed under “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995” which is a special enactment and liberal interpretation should be given because it meant for the benefit of physically handicapped candidate for bringing them into the main stream but the appellant was not appointed due to the fault on the part of the respondent-authorities. 5. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the appellant approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2379 of 2016 but the Hon’ble Court did not consider that after advertisement no variation or alteration could have been made in the vacancy position and if there is change or alteration in the vacancy position for whatever reasons, it amounts to issuance of fresh advertisement so fresh preference from the candidate should have been invited which was not done in the present case. He further submitted that the Act provides for reservation of 3% vacancy for class of persons with disability and the appellant was visually handicapped as well as locomotor disable so the appellant could have been considered for appointment under visually handicapped category when the vacancy was existing. 6. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of State as well as on behalf of Jharkhand Academic Council submitted that the appellant had applied for appointment under MBC quota and has submitted application under O.H. category. After the disposal of writ petition no.1266 of 2005 and analogous cases in which she was one of the petitioner, a grievance was raised that the vacancies in terms of Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 have not been assessed taking into account the total number of vacancy. The learned Single Judge by order dated 13th August, 2015 directed the respondent to reassess the total number of vacancies under the disability Act. Due to this direction, re-calculation of vacancy was made. The appellant was 70% disable under O.H. category where cut off marks was 200 and the appellant had secured only 181 marks. The learned Single Judge by order dated 13th August, 2015 directed the respondent to reassess the total number of vacancies under the disability Act. Due to this direction, re-calculation of vacancy was made. The appellant was 70% disable under O.H. category where cut off marks was 200 and the appellant had secured only 181 marks. The appellant now want to change her preference although one of the conditions in the advertisement was that the candidate must declare the preference at the time of application and the preference cannot be changed after the declaration of result and seeing the vacancy position. 7. The further stand of the Government is that Advertisement No. 93 of 2011 was published for appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in Government High School in which appellant had applied for appointment as Urdu teacher under MBC category claiming reservation under physically handicapped (O.H.) as she is 70% physically handicapped as per the certificate issued to her. The re-calculation of the vacancy was made after the order dated 13th August, 2015 passed in W.P. (S) No.1266 of 2015 with other analogous cases. As per roaster, post of Urdu teacher was calculated to be reserved for visually handicapped candidate. Presently, the policy for appointment in secondary school/High School Teachers have changed vide Notification No. 434 dated 1st March, 2016 by issuing “Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teachers and Non-Teaching Appointment and Service Condition Rule, 2015” and the services of the High School Teachers have been made as district cadre post and appointing authority is District Education Establishment Committee. The recruitment examination is now conducted by Staff Selection Commission on the basis of district wise vacancy and results have also been published and appointment processes are underway. In this situation, the appellant is not entitled for appointment under visually handicapped category as the preference declared at the time of application cannot be changed at a later stage. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand Academic Council, it appears that an advertisement for appointment in upgraded secondary school was issued in which the appellant applied under V.H. category. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand Academic Council, it appears that an advertisement for appointment in upgraded secondary school was issued in which the appellant applied under V.H. category. Appellant approached the High Court in W.P.(S) No.1266 of 2015 and other analogous matter for 3% reservation to physically handicapped category in terms of Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 in recruitment exercise conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council for filling of post of Assistant Teachers in Upgraded High School under Advertisement No. 93/2011. After this direction, the respondents re-calculated the total number of vacancies and accordingly the results were published. Since the appellant had previously declared successful but subsequent to recalculation of vacancies including the reservation under the Act of 1995, she could not find her name in the list of successful candidate. Her grievance before the writ court in W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2016 was that the Act being beneficial legislation, and the petitioner was suffering disability in the category of V.H. as also O.H. so after re-calculation of vacancies the appointment could not be denied to her. Other contention was that recalculation of vacancies amounts to issuing a fresh advertisement and again preference must have been called/ invited. The writ court while dismissing the prayer held that the preference given at the time of submission of application is binding and if by an order of court her category is changed to V.H., it would amount to changing the preference given by her. A candidate must be bound by the declaration and the preference disclosed in the application only. Since the advertisement was of the year 2011 and the process for appointment has changed from the State cadre to District cadre post as per Notification No. 434 dated 1st March, 2016 “Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teachers and Non-Teaching Appointment and Service Condition Rule, 2015” and Staff Selection Commission has published/declared the recommendation for appointment on the basis of District wise vacancy position, the situation has changed drastically and now no vacancy exist as State cadre post. The preference submitted at the time of application cannot be allowed to change after declaration of result. We find no occasion to interfere in the impugned order of the writ court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The preference submitted at the time of application cannot be allowed to change after declaration of result. We find no occasion to interfere in the impugned order of the writ court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. I.A. No.3173 of 2017 shall also stand dismissed.