JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2-Commissioner for physically disabled persons, State of Gujarat in Case No. 264 of 2007 directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sahayak in the category of physically disabled (hearing impairment). 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The advertisement for recruitment of 79 Panchayat Sahayaks was published in the newspaper in 2007. As per the Government Resolution dated 15.02.2001, the petitioners were required to fill up 3% of the advertised posts through physically disabled candidates. 3. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the petitioners has submitted that two (2) posts were required to be filled up through physically challenged candidates, but as four (4) posts were also carried forward, the petitioners decided to fill up in all six (6) posts through physically disabled candidates. He has submitted that a merit list was prepared subsequent to receipt and scrutiny of the application received in response to the advertisement and a list of six (6) candidates was prepared on merits of Standard-XII marks/percentage. He has submitted that looking to the nature of the job and responsibility, the petitioner No. 2 decided that respondent No. 1, who had also applied for the employment, and since he is suffering from 50% speech as well as hearing disability would not be able to discharge the duty of Panchayat Sahayak; he was not considered eligible for the post. He has further submitted that even on the basis of qualification of Standard-XII, the respondent No. 1 did not fall in the merit list. 3.1. Finally, it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that the respondent No. 1 cannot be granted any appointment at this stage, since there were other meritorious candidates being A.S. Patel, V.A. Patel and K.N. Savjiyani, who were having more marks and also were suffering with the same disabilities as the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 is further seeking the appointment, which would lead to a complex situation and hence, the impugned order giving directions to the petitioners by the respondent No. 2 is required to be set aside. 3.2. The respondent No. 1 is further seeking the appointment, which would lead to a complex situation and hence, the impugned order giving directions to the petitioners by the respondent No. 2 is required to be set aside. 3.2. He has also invited attention of this court to the resolution dated 02.07.2001 and has submitted that the same would also apply to the respondent No. 1, wherein it is laid down by the State Government that the persons having hearing impairment are not required to be appointed. He has further submitted that since the respondent No. 1 is suffering from speech and hearing impairment, his case is not required to be considered under disabilities of hearing impairment. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Gaurav K. Mehta for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the merit list prepared by the petitioner No. 2 is in fact in violation of their own circular dated 15.12.2001, which clearly provides that the person, who is having less than 40% disabilities will be benefited of the same. He has submitted that looking to the merit list prepared by the petitioner No. 2, one Dabhi Ashokbhai Lakhmanbhai, who is a selected candidate, is having less than 40% disabilities. He has submitted that the entire merit list is prepared by the petitioner No. 2 of five (5) candidates, who are falling in the category of locomotor disability and the candidates suffering from hearing disabilities are totally ignored. He has placed reliance on the medical certificate for the persons with disabilities issued to the respondent No. 1 dated 01.12.2003, wherein it is certified that the respondent No. 1 is suffering from 50% speech and hearing impairment. Reliance is also placed by the learned advocate on the provision, more particularly, Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Fill Participation) Act, 1995 (For short "the Act"), which provides that all the vacancies in the Government establishment are required to be filled in by 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. He has submitted that in the present case, all the candidates, who are appointed, belong to locomotor disability and the respondent No. 1, who is suffering from hearing impairment is totally ignored in the appointment process. He has submitted that in the present case, all the candidates, who are appointed, belong to locomotor disability and the respondent No. 1, who is suffering from hearing impairment is totally ignored in the appointment process. Thus, he has submitted that the respondent No. 2-Commissioner for physically disabled persons in the application filed by the respondent No. 1 has considered all these aspects and further directed the petitioners to consider the appointment of the respondent No. 1 in the category of hearing impairment. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and the petitioners may be directed to act accordingly. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 6. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2007 issued by the petitioners, selection process was initiated for filling up six (6) posts through the candidates, who are physically challenged. Accordingly, the merit list of six (6) candidates was prepared on the basis of marks/percentage obtained by such candidates in standard-XII. A perusal of the merit list reveals the names of six (6) persons. Out of six (6) persons, five (5) candidates pertain to locomotor disability. However, the candidate at SR. No. 616 was having 52% of hearing impairment and her percentage in Standard-XII was shown as 76.57%. The respondent No. 1 thereafter, has challenged the aforesaid merit list before the respondent No. 2 claiming discrimination in the appointment. 7. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 is suffering from 50% speech and hearing disability as can be seen from the certificate issued on 01.12.2003 by the Sir T. General Hospital and Medical College, Bhavnagar. The respondent No. 1 has filed an application being Case No. 264 of 2007 before the respondent No. 2 and after hearing the concerned parties, by the impugned order dated 18.02.2008, the respondent No. 2 had directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for the appointment of the said post by observing that the entire recruitment process was in violation of Section 33 of the Act. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provision of Section 33 of the Act. "33. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provision of Section 33 of the Act. "33. Reservation of posts.--Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from-- (i) blindness or low vision;(ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section." 8. Section 33 of the Act stipulates that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent for persons or class of persons with disability, of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. The case of the respondent No. 1 would definitely fall within the disability of hearing impairment. It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondent No. 1 is suffering from speech and hearing impairment, his case cannot be considered for the appointment as the Act only provides for hearing disability. The said contention does not merit acceptance and is fallacy since hearing impairment is always associated with the speech impairment and merely because the respondent No. 1 is suffering from 50% disability inclusive of both speech and hearing impairment, his case for the appointment in the category of hearing impairment cannot be discarded. Moreover, the circular dated 15.02.2001, refers to reservation for physically challenged persons, who have 40% or more disability. There are various categories of disabilities prescribed in the circular. In the present case the disability of the respondent No. 1 is more than 40%. The respondent No. 1 applied in such category and his application was also accepted by the petitioners along with other candidates, whose names figure in merit list at SR. Nos. 663, 2979 and 5899. All such candidates, who were suffering from speech and hearing impairment were considered for the appointment to the said post. The respondent No. 1 applied in such category and his application was also accepted by the petitioners along with other candidates, whose names figure in merit list at SR. Nos. 663, 2979 and 5899. All such candidates, who were suffering from speech and hearing impairment were considered for the appointment to the said post. The petitioners in fact have taken a stand that other similarly situated persons, who are having similar disabilities and were more meritorious candidates, would also claim their appointment because of the respondent No. 1 hence, the application of the respondent No. 1 may be rejected. Such stand is contrary to the aforenoted submissions, which is canvassed by the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw. 9. As per the provision of Section 33 of the Act, it is obligatory upon the petitioner to appoint such person in the category of speech impairment since Section 33 of the Act stipulates for reserving one percent to each category of the persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision;(ii) hearing impairment;(iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. The petitioners have appointed or placed such candidates in the merit list who are having these type of disabilities. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, after perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2-Commissioner, no illegality and perversity is found in the order since, after candidates, who belong to the same category of the petitioners, have not thought it fit to challenge their appointment, their case in not required to be considered along with the petitioners. Such candidates have slept over their rights, and hence, cannot be given preference at this stage. 11. The present writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 12. The petitioners are hereby directed to appoint the respondent No. 1 as per the order passed by the respondent No. 2 along with all consequential benefits. Appropriate order shall be passed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Direct service is permitted.