JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Deepu Sanwaria, who is aggrieved by his non-selection on the post of Lower Division Clerk against the quota meant for differently abled persons. The petitioner assailed the select list dated 25.06.2014 issued pursuant to advertisement dated 10.03.2014. 2. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, by aforesaid advertisement invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerk in Bharatpur Judgeship under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. 27 posts were advertised for District Judgeship Bharatpur and 13 posts were advertised for District Legal Services Authority and thus 40 posts were advertised in total. Out of 27 posts, 5 posts were earmarked for Scheduled Tribe and 8 posts for Scheduled Casts, whereas 7 posts were required to be filled in from Other Backward Classes and 7 posts were for general category. Out of 13 posts advertised for District Legal Services Authority, 3 posts were earmarked for OBC, 1 post each for SC and ST category and rest 8 posts were to be filled from general category. The advertisement stated that women, physically disabled (differently abled) and sports-persons would be entitled for reservation as per the Rules. The advertisement further stated that 24 vacancies are anticipated in addition 40 vacancies and hence advertisement was for 64 vacancies, i.e., 40 clear vacancies and 24 anticipated vacancies. Column 15 of the advertisement stated that the candidates are required to submit true copies of certificates. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner being Scheduled Caste candidate and also physically disabled, submitted both the certificate along-with the application form and applied in both the categories. He appeared in the written test and secured 134.31 marks in total, whereas the last candidate selected in Scheduled Caste category secured 142.17 marks in total. The petitioner was shocked to learn that the respondents have not considered his candidature for appointment in the quota meant for differently abled candidates. 4. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, further submitted that the respondents have not appointed a single candidate against two posts reserved for differently abled candidates and therefore they have violated the mandate of the Persons with Disability (equal opportunity, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995. 4. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, further submitted that the respondents have not appointed a single candidate against two posts reserved for differently abled candidates and therefore they have violated the mandate of the Persons with Disability (equal opportunity, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995. The petitioner filed an application under Right to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 but his application was rejected vide order dated 22.08.2015 on the ground that he has not filed it on the proforma mentioned under the Right to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 and Rule 10(2) has not been followed. He then preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 08.09.2015 and the same was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2015. Vide order dated 8.09.2015, 19 candidates were appointed on the post of LDC in compliance of order dated 14.08.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9918/2014 - Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Others Vrs. District Judge, Bharatpur. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 14.08.2015, 24 appointments were to be offered in Bharatpur judgeship against 24 anticipated vacancies. However, instead of 24 posts, only 19 candidates were appointed. The respondents have not provided 3% reservation meant for differently abled candidates in terms of the Act of 1995. 5. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that as per Column 15 of the advertisement, the candidates were required to annex photostat copies of the documents on which they relied on. Column 15 puts a question to a candidate whether he belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Class/Special Backward Class/Person with disability and if so, give particulars with a certificate from a Magistrate in support of the claim. The petitioner in response thereto, mentioned 'YES' but did not specify as to in which category he applied for, whether it was Scheduled Caste or Person with disability. The petitioner along-with the application form claimed to have annexed 14 documents in which at serial no. 11 he stated to have annexed the certificate pertaining to caste and at serial no. 13 he stated to have annexed the certificate pertaining to disability. Though the petitioner produced a certificate pertaining to his caste but the disability certificate which was stated to be annexed at serial no. 13 was in fact not found annexed with the application form. 11 he stated to have annexed the certificate pertaining to caste and at serial no. 13 he stated to have annexed the certificate pertaining to disability. Though the petitioner produced a certificate pertaining to his caste but the disability certificate which was stated to be annexed at serial no. 13 was in fact not found annexed with the application form. At the time of scrutiny, it was found by the concerning clerk that the relevant certificate of disability was not enclosed with the application form. Since the petitioner was considered as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category, the cut off marks of which category were 142.17, he having obtained 134.31 marks was considered not eligible for appointment. 6. This Court by order dated 14.05.2019 required the respondents to state on specific affidavit whether all the posts reserved for differently abled candidates, out of 64 posts advertised, were filled in or any post in that quota still remains unfilled. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that an affidavit of Mr. Ashok Kumar Tak, presently posted as Additional District Judge No. 4, Bharatpur, the Officer-in-Charge of the case, has been filed on record of the case, according to which the posts reserved for differently abled candidates have remained unfilled. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had indicated 'YES' in response to Column 15 of the proforma application query pertained to both whether he belonged to Scheduled Caste and Person with disability. It is also not in dispute that at serial no. 13 of the list of documents enclosed with the application form, the petitioner mentioned with regard to disability certificate. The dispute is whether the disability certificate was not found enclosed with the application form. According to the petitioner, he very much enclosed the disability certificate with the application form, however, according to the respondents, during scrutiny the disability certificate was found missing. The petitioner has enclosed with the writ petition the certificate of disability as Annexure-3. The certificate appears to have been issued by the Medical Board, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, on 09.09.2003. According to the aforesaid certificate, the petitioner suffered disablement of right lower limb to the extent of 40%. The advertisement mentioned a candidate belonging to differently abled category shall entitled to reservation as per the Rules. 8. The certificate appears to have been issued by the Medical Board, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, on 09.09.2003. According to the aforesaid certificate, the petitioner suffered disablement of right lower limb to the extent of 40%. The advertisement mentioned a candidate belonging to differently abled category shall entitled to reservation as per the Rules. 8. A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors. - (2005) 9 SCC 779 , held that indeed the general rule is that while applying for any post, the requisite eligibility should be supplied as on the last date fixed in the brochure inviting the application and unless there is an express provision to the contrary, no relaxation in this regard is permissible. But it was also categorically held by the Supreme Court that where the benefit of a weight age or reservation is sought and necessary certificates pre-existing the last date of the application form have been produced even subsequently, as the matter merely relates to the submission of proof and not to substantive eligibility, no rigid principle of exclusion on this account of late submission can be applied. The foundational principle for so holding by the Supreme Court was on count of the facts that submission of proof with regard to the right to any weightage or reservation pertains only to the domain of procedure. The Supreme Court in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion relying on its previous judgment in the case of Charles K. Skaria Versus Dr. C. Mathew - (1980) 2 SCC page 752, in para 20 of which, the Court, on the facts before it, held that proof of having obtained a diploma for additional 10 marks was distinct from the factum of having got the requisite diploma before the cut off date. The primary question, in such a situation, was "Has the candidate in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application" and even though it would have been prudent to produce evidence of the requisite Diploma along with the application (as was in the said case specifically required by the prospectus) "that was secondary". The primary question, in such a situation, was "Has the candidate in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application" and even though it would have been prudent to produce evidence of the requisite Diploma along with the application (as was in the said case specifically required by the prospectus) "that was secondary". The Supreme Court further held in Charles K. Skaria, supra, that academic excellence through a diploma for which extra mark was to be granted could not be denuded or overlooked only because the proof of having acquired it was produced later, albeit before the date of actual selection. It was held that "the emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof sub-serves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential in the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the hand mad but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence." (underlying ours) 9. The Supreme Court in Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Vs. Union of India - (2014) 14 SCC 383 , has held that the role of the Governments in the matter of such as this has to be proactive. In the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on the mercy of others. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on the mercy of others. A welfare State, that India is, must accord its best and special attention to a section of our society which comprises of differently abled citizens. This is true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunity. In this view of the matter, no question does arise of the name of the petitioner not falling within the zone of consideration. The petitioner is obviously entitled to be selected against one post of Lower Division Clerk in Bharatpur judgeship in terms of the provision of Section 33 of the Act. The final select list shows that no physically disabled candidate has been selected for appointment. 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to succeed and it is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. In doing so, they shall verify the genuineness of the certificates of the petitioner. If the petitioner satisfies the requirement of the relevant Rules, the respondents are required to consider his case for appointment. The appointment of the petitioner shall relate back to the date on which the last candidate selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.03.2014 was appointed. He shall, however, be entitled to only notional benefits for the intervening period. 11. Compliance be made within a period of three months from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before the respondent no. 2.