JUDGMENT : Nani Tagia, J. 1. These intra-Court appeals preferred by the appellants/Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC, for short) are directed against the judgment & order, dated 13.11.2019, passed in WP(c) 56(K) 2018 and WP(c)214 (K) 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge had directed to keep 1(one) post of Extra-Assistant Commissioner (EAC, for short) and 1 (one) post of Secretariat Assistant(SA, for short) out of 15 posts and 40 posts, respectively, to be reserved for the visually disabled or impaired persons in connection with Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, issued by the NPSC. The learned Single Judge had further directed the State Government to take appropriate action as per Section 33 & 34 and other provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2016', for short), within a period of 5(five) months. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ appeals, be stated, as follows: (i). The respondent No. 1, as writ petitioner, had filed WP(c) 56(K) 2018, alleging that no proper identification of posts and services have been made by the Government of Nagaland in the Government Departments and establishments for reservation of posts for visually impaired or disabled persons. While the above writ petition was pending consideration of this Court, the NPSC issued an Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, under Memo. No. NPSC/ADVT/NONTECH/8/2018 whereby applications were invited for filling up of 15 posts of EAC, I post of Employment Officer, 1 post of Assistant Public Relation Officer, 4 posts of Excise Inspector, 40 posts of Secretariat Assistant, and 1 post of Information Assistant. Under the terms and conditions No. 3 of the above advertisement, it was provided that reservation for physically challenged candidates, wherever applicable, shall be as per Government Notification, No. AR/Gen-9/97 dated 16.01.2008. (ii). The writ petitioner in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, had applied for the post of EAC and SA. The petitioner being visually impaired person, having found that no reservation have been provided for the category of visually impaired person, filed another writ petition being WP(c) 214(K) 2018, assailing the Notification, dated 16.01.2008, along with a prayer for direction to be issued to the State respondents to implement the Act of 2016 and also with a further prayer that the final result of the NCS, NPS, NSS and allied Services Examination 2018, should be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. (iii). (iii). On 06.11.2018, when the aforesaid writ petition being WP(c) 214 (AP) 2018, was considered by the learned Single Judge, following interim order was passed, the operative part of which is quoted hereinbelow: "In the interim, it is provided that any selection that may be undertaken pursuant to the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition. It is further provided that the respondent authorities shall also examine the implementation of the provision of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, while undertaking such selection." (iv). On 24.7.2019, when both the writ petitions were considered by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge had passed the further following interim orders, the operative part of which are quoted hereunder: "On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, this Court directs the State respondents to identify the various posts under various services/offices, to be filled up by persons with benchmarks disabilities, as per Section-33 & 34 of the 2016 Act, within a period of 6(six) months from today. However, in respect of the services in which vacancies are to be filled up, as enumerated in the Advertisement No. NPSC-3/2018, the State Government shall identify the posts to be filled up in respect of those services as mentioned in the said advertisement, in terms of Section-33 & 34 of the 2016 Act, within a period of 2(two) months from today." (v). On an appeal filed by the State Government, which was registered as W.A. No. 13(K) 2019 against the interim orders, dated 24.07.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in the above noted two writ petitions, directing the State Government to identify the posts to be filled-up in respect of those services as mentioned in the Advertisement, dated 31.8.2018, in terms of Section 33 & 34 of the Act of 2016, within a period of 2 months, the writ appeal was disposed of by this Court, vide order, dated 18.10.2019, with the following order, the operative part of which is quoted as under: "That till the disposal of the two writ petitions, one post of EAC and one post of Secretariat Assistant should not be filled up. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved in the two writ petitions, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the two writ petitions at the earliest. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved in the two writ petitions, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the two writ petitions at the earliest. Needless to say but to avoid any confusion, the respondent No. 2 i.e. NPSC is given the liberty to go ahead with the process of selection." 3. The case of the writ petitioner as projected in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was that as the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, was issued after coming into force of the Act of 2016, the respondent authorities ought to have provided for reservation of the posts for the physically challenged persons as provided under the Act of 2016. The same having not been done, the respondent authorities be directed to provide for reservation of posts for physically challenged persons in the recruitment initiated vide Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, after necessary identification of the posts for the purpose of reservation under the Act of 2016, is made. 4. The State Government while contesting the case, had submitted that as the identification of the posts for the purpose of providing reservation for the physically challenged persons under the Act of 2016 had not yet been done by the State Government, the State Government provided the recruitment to be done on the basis of Notification, dated 16.01.2008, which is an exercise undertaken by the State Government for identification of posts to be reserved for the physically challenged persons in pursuance of Sections 32 & 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1995' for short). 5. The State respondents further contended that the State Government has already initiated the process for identification of posts, to be reserved for the physically challenged persons under the Act of 2016. 6. The NPSC, on the other hand, had contended that the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, was issued on the basis of requisition submitted by the State Government wherein Notification, dated 16.01.2008, which provides for reservation of posts for the physically challenged persons, was forwarded to the NPSC to be followed in the recruitment to be undertaken. 6. The NPSC, on the other hand, had contended that the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, was issued on the basis of requisition submitted by the State Government wherein Notification, dated 16.01.2008, which provides for reservation of posts for the physically challenged persons, was forwarded to the NPSC to be followed in the recruitment to be undertaken. It was in pursuance thereof, that in the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, the NPSC had specifically incorporated under terms and conditions No. 3, that Notification, dated 16.01.2008 would be followed insofar as reservation of posts for the physically challenged persons, are concerned. The recruitment having been done strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions as prescribed in the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, no any illegality have been committed by the NPSC. 7. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the parties, had come to a conclusion that Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, having been issued after the Act of 2016 came into force, the respondent authorities are duty bound to provide for reservation of posts for the physically challenged persons as contemplated under Sections 33 & 34 of the Act of 2016 and accordingly, the learned Single Judge had directed 1 (one) post, each, of EAC and SA, be reserved for the visually disabled or impaired persons. 8. We have heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; as well as Mr. N. Angami, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3. 9. Mr. Jamir, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contends that as the recruitment have been undertaken and completed by the NPSC strictly on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, the NPSC had not committed any illegality in the recruitment process. Insofar as reservation for the physically challenged persons is concerned, it was specifically provided in the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, that it shall be as per the Government Notification, dated 16.01.2008, wherein, the posts of EAC and SA, were not identified to be the posts meant to be reserved for the physically challenged persons, therefore, no such direction could have been given by the learned Single Judge to reserve I post, each, of EAC and SA, for the visually disabled or impaired persons. 10. 10. Mr. Jamir, learned senior counsel, further contends that if reservation of a post for the visually disabled or impaired person is provided now, in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge, it would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game is played inasmuch as the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, did not provide for any such reservation of posts for the visually disabled or impaired persons/candidates. 11. Mr. Sheqi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, contends that the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, having been issued after coming into force of the Act of 2016, the respondent authorities are duty bound to provide for reservation of the posts for the physically challenged persons as provided under the Act of 2016 and the respondent authorities having failed to provide for reservation of posts for the physically challenged persons as contemplated under the Act of 2016, no any illegality have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the direction for keeping 1 post, each, of the EAC and SA, to be reserved for the visually disabled or impaired persons. 12. Mr. Angami, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that the process for identifying the post to be reserved for the physically challenged persons, as contemplated under the Act of 2016, have already been initiated by the State Government, and the same would be completed by the State Government, any time soon. 13. Mr. Angami, learned Government Advocate, further contends that it was in the absence of identification of posts for reservation of the physically challenged persons in terms of the Act of 2016, that the Notification, dated 16.01.2008, was forwarded to the NPSC to be followed in the recruitment to be conducted in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018. 14. Rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, have received due consideration of this Court. 15. It is not in dispute that the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, was published after coming into force of the Act of 2016 which had come into force on and from 19.04.2017 as notified by the Government of India Extraordinary Gazette Part II Section 3 (ii), dated 19.04.2017, by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. Sections 33 & 34 of the Act of 2016 which are relevant for adjudication of the present appeals are quoted hereinbelow, for ready reference: "33. Sections 33 & 34 of the Act of 2016 which are relevant for adjudication of the present appeals are quoted hereinbelow, for ready reference: "33. The appropriate Government shall- (i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 34; (ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and (iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years. 34. (1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:- (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities: Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time: Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section. (2). (2). Where in any recruitment year, any vacancy cannot be tilled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also, suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability: Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. (3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit." 16. From a conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 2016, it is noticed that not less than 4 percent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts in the Government establishments, are required to be filled-up with persons with benchmark disabilities of the categories specified in Section 34 of the Act of 2016. For the purpose of filling-up of the posts as indicated above, the State Government is under an obligation under Section 33 of the Act of 2016, to identify the posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities as provided under Section 34 of the Act of 2016. The State Government, therefore, was under an obligation to send to the NPSC at the time of requisition of posts, the Notification of the State Government, identifying which of the posts are to be reserved for which of the categories as contemplated under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 2016. 17. In the instant case, the State Government, while sending a requisition to the NPSC, instead of forwarding a Notification of reservation of posts for the physically challenged persons under the Act of 2016, had, instead, forwarded the Notification, dated 16.1.2008, which is a Notification of posts identified by the State Government in terms of the Act of 1995. 17. In the instant case, the State Government, while sending a requisition to the NPSC, instead of forwarding a Notification of reservation of posts for the physically challenged persons under the Act of 2016, had, instead, forwarded the Notification, dated 16.1.2008, which is a Notification of posts identified by the State Government in terms of the Act of 1995. It may be noted herein that by an Act of 2016, the Act of 1995 had already been repealed. 18. We have not gone through the merit of the selection made by the NPSC in terms of the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, and the appellant NPSC may not have committed any error in selecting the candidates with regard to the physically challenged persons following the Notification of the State Government, dated 16.01.2008, in that regard, in the recruitment conducted in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018; yet, we find that once the Act of 2016 have come into force w.e.f. 19.04.2017, there is no justifiable reason as to why the reservation of posts as contemplated under the Act of 2016, should not be provided for, in the recruitment undertaken by the NPSC in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018. 19. The anomalous situation of recruitment being completed in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, and the result being readied by the NPSC without providing for reservation of the posts for the physically challenged persons as contemplated under the Act of 2016, have arisen due to the inaction on the part of the State Government in not fulfilling the mandate given to it under Sections 33 & 34 of the Act of 2016. The State Government have failed in its duty in complying with the legislative mandate of filling up of not less than 4 percent of the total number of posts in the Government establishments for the categories specified under Section 34 of the Act of 2016, after having identified the posts for such reservation as mandated by Section 33 of the Act of 2016. For the failure on the part of the State Government to act as per the mandate of the Act of 2016, we are of the view that physically challenged persons cannot be denied their entitlement under the Act of 2016, if, at all, anybody is entitled to, for the same, under the Act of 2016. 20. For the failure on the part of the State Government to act as per the mandate of the Act of 2016, we are of the view that physically challenged persons cannot be denied their entitlement under the Act of 2016, if, at all, anybody is entitled to, for the same, under the Act of 2016. 20. There is no question of changing the rules of the game after the game have been played as contended by Mr. Jamir, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants. "Changing of rules of the game" pertains to any change brought into the selection criteria after the process of the recruitment is commenced or selection have been made. 21. In the instant case, there is no introduction of any new norms of recruitment/selection criteria. What is sought to be introduced in the instant case, is the legitimate entitlement of the physically challenged persons under the Act of 2016. Such entitlement conferred to any physically challenged persons by an Act of Parliament, cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be said to be an introduction of a new norm of recruitment/selection, contrary to what was provided in the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018. Any advertisement for recruitment, must conform to the requirement of the constitutional norms, Recruitment Rules, statutory provisions and any other relevant law that has a bearing with the post(s) advertised. Any valid law enacted by the legislature which has a bearing with the posts advertised, must necessarily be read into the advertisement even if no such specific mention have been made in the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. 22. In the present case, the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, having been issued after coming into force of the Act of 2016 which has a bearing on the recruitment of the posts advertised, must be read into the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, although it may not have been specifically provided in the said Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018. 22. In the present case, the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, having been issued after coming into force of the Act of 2016 which has a bearing on the recruitment of the posts advertised, must be read into the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, although it may not have been specifically provided in the said Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018. What is also to be noted is that in the Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, the terms and conditions No. 3 which provided for following the Notification, dated 16.01.2008, insofar as the reservation for the physically challenged persons are concerned, could not have been provided for and applied in the recruitment undertaken in terms of the Advertisement, dated 31.8.2018, inasmuch as at the time of issuance of the Advertisement, dated 31.8.2018, the Act of 2016 was already in force and the Act of 2016 had already repealed the Act of 1995. 23. The Notification, dated 16.01.2008, was a Notification issued by the State Government in pursuance of Sections 32 & 33 of the Act of 1995, which Act already stood repealed by the Act of 2016. Once, the Act of 1995 stood repealed, the Notification, dated 16.01.2008, issued in pursuance thereof, also automatically stood repealed. Therefore, the State Government could not have forwarded the Notification, dated 16.01.2008, to the NPSC to be followed while undertaking the recruitment for the posts advertised vide Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018. 24. For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any illegality in the directions given by the learned Single Judge in its impugned judgment & order, dated 13.11.2019, passed in WP(c)56(K) 2018 and WP(c) 214(K) 2018, except to the extent that the learned Single Judge had directed 1(one) post, each, of EAC and SA, to be reserved for the visually disabled or impaired persons only. 25. 25. As the identification of the posts to be reserved for the physically challenged persons as contemplated under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 2016, have to be made by the State Government and the same being in the process of being identified by the State Government, we modify the directions passed by the learned Single Judge, in its judgment & order, dated 13.11.2019, in WP(c)56(K) 2018 and WP(c)214(K)2018, for keeping 1 (one) post, each, of EAC and SA, reserved, for the visually disabled or impaired persons alone and clarify that the 1 (one) post, each, of EAC and SA, to be kept vacant, in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated 31.8.2018; shall not necessarily be for the visually disabled or impaired persons alone but shall be as may be determined by the State Government in accordance with Sections 33 & 34 of the Act of 2016. Consequently, we direct that the result for the 1 (one) post, each, of EAC and SA, with regard to the said Advertisement, dated 31.08.2018, be declared and filled-up after the State Government completes the identification of posts to be reserved for the physically challenged persons as mandated under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 2016. 26. The writ appeals accordingly stands disposed of, in terms above. 27. The connected Interlocutory Applications preferred by the NPSC being IA(c) 165 (K)2019 and IA (c) 166(K) 2019, also stands closed and disposed of.