JUDGMENT 1. Contention of Shri S.K. Rungta, petitioner No. 2 and General Secretary of National Federation of the Blind present in person is that clause 9(a) of the Guidelines for Conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) issued by NCTE on 11.2.2011 while prescribing 60% of minimum marks for the qualification of TET exam, provided that the State may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, specially abled persons etc., in accordance with the extant reservation policy. The State Government by its order dated 23.3.2011 directed that 20% concession in minimum marks may be given to all the persons covered within the definition of "persons with disability" under clause (t) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Even then in the advertisement No. 1/2017 (Annexure-12) issued by the respondents for REET- 2017 of the Teacher Grade-III Level-I, no such relaxation was provided although reservation to the extent of 3% was provided for the Specially Abled Persons in clause 11.2(iii)(f) of the advertisement No. 1/2018 as per the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules of 2011. It was provided therein that if the posts are not filled up due to non-availability of the candidates in that category, the vacancies shall be carried forward, but such vacancies shall be filled by regular process and equal number of vacancies shall be carried out forward to the next year. 2. Shri S.K. Rungta submits that in the advertisement, the reservation of only 3% has been provided, whereas the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (the new Act), which came into force with effect from 1st April, 2016 enhanced the quota of reservation to 4% and this quota for appointment as Teacher according to him would be equally divided amongst the persons in the category of visually impaired and those with locomotor disability. The Government of Rajasthan had not amended the Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules of 2011 to bring it in tune with the Act of 2016 at that time and only recently amended the same so as to enhance the quota of reservation from 3% to 4%. The Government of Rajasthan had not amended the Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules of 2011 to bring it in tune with the Act of 2016 at that time and only recently amended the same so as to enhance the quota of reservation from 3% to 4%. He submits that even going by the quota of 3% notified for specially abled persons in the advertisement in question, total 378 vacancies should have been reserved for the persons in visually impaired category and equal number of 378 vacancies should have been reserved for those with locomotor disability. In the category of visually impaired, only 133 appointments have been made and there is a shortfall to the extent of 245 vacancies. He therefore submits that the respondent-State may be required by the interim order not to fill up the vacancies at least to the extent of 3% from the general /open category and be required to carry out an exercise by applying the relaxation of 20% so as to find out as to if sufficient number of candidates in both categories viz. visually impaired and locomotor disability are available to fill up the vacancies in their quota. 3. Issue notice. Shri M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General, who is present in Court is requested to appear in this matter and file the reply. Name of Shri Darsh Pareek for the State be shown in the cause list. 4. In the meantime, the respondent-State shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and also find out the number of candidates appointed in the specially abled category and keep number of vacancies to the extent of shortfall, unfilled after undertaking the aforesaid exercise, till further orders passed by this Court. Reply to the writ petition containing all such shall be filed by the State in this behalf before this Court. 5. We have been informed that there are two more writ petitions involving the same issue pending before the Single Bench of this Court. We therefore direct to list this matter along with CW No. 6074/2016 and 24073/17 on 22.04.2019.