JUDGMENT : These appeals are filed by the appellants under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.07.2013 passed in W.P.No.16920/2013. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.16920/2013 are that the appellant in W.A.No.5545/2013 and the respondent No.5 were the applicants in response to a notification issued by the official respondents dated 20.08.2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Anganawadi Assistant at T.Hosur, Chintamani Taluk. The respondent No.5 was appointed in terms of the order dated 18.06.2012. The appellant in W.A.No.5545/2013 alleged that the respondent No.5 was a differently abled person which she suppressed and in view of the guideline No.9 annexed to Government Order dated 10.06.2011, it was contended that the respondent No.5 was not entitled to be appointed. Based on the objection of the appellant, the official respondents passed an order dated 25.03.2013 cancelling the appointment of the respondent No.5 with effect 25.03.2013. The respondent No.5 challenged the aforesaid order of cancellation in W.A.No.5545/2013. 3. The learned Single Judge secured the presence of the respondent No.5 before the Court and found that there was no apparent disability and that except a deformity in right leg, which was less than 10%, the learned Single Judge held that the cancellation of the appointment of the respondent No.5 on the ground that she was differently abled, was illegal. The learned Single Judge further held that it is the duty of the State to provide appointment of this nature only to persons to downtrodden section of society as well as persons belonging to differently abled class. The learned Single Judge read down the notification dated 10.06.2011 to the extent it disallowed differently abled persons from participating in the process of recruitment. The learned Single Judge relied upon guideline No.4(a) of the notification dated 10.06.2011 and held that differently abled persons, reformed Devadasis, destitute children, displaced persons, deserted women, scheduled caste and schedule tribe are entitled for 5 bonus marks in the process of selection. The learned Single Judge also held that the notification at item No.4 prevented dumb, deaf, blind and mentally challenged persons from filing an application to the post of Anganawadi Assistant. The learned Single Judge also held that the notification at item No.4 prevented dumb, deaf, blind and mentally challenged persons from filing an application to the post of Anganawadi Assistant. The learned Single Judge therefore, held that preventing differently abled person from filing an application against the notification issued by the Government for appointment violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, accordingly the order dated 25.03.2013 was quashed by which services of terminating the services of respondent No.5 were terminated and she was permitted to continue in the same post. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the respondent No.5 was differently abled, the notification clearly barred such applicants from applying to the post. The learned counsel contended that the work of an Anganawadi Assistant involves getting the students to the school, cooking, taking care of the children, keeping the premises clean etc. and therefore, the respondent No.5 was not fit to hold the post of an Anganawadi Assistant. The learned Additional Government Advocate also supported these contentions and contended that the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No.5 contended that she was the most meritorious candidate and was therefore selected. He also contended that the learned Single Judge had seen the respondent No.5 in the Court and had found that the respondent No.5 had suffered only deformity of the limb, which resulted in slight limp. He therefore, contended that in the absence of any material which prevented her from functioning as a Anganawadi Assistant, the order of the learned Single Judge was justified and did not call for any interference. 6. This Court queried the Additional Government Advocate whether the respondent No.5 was continued in employment from the date of her appointment till today and whether there were any adverse remarks against her or whether she was unable to perform her duties due to her handicap. The learned Additional Government Advocate confirmed that respondent No.5 has continued in employment. 7. The appointment of the respondent No.5 was against a notification issued by the Government for appointment of the post of Anganawadi Assistant. The respondent No.5 being the most meritorious was appointed though she was differently abled. The learned Additional Government Advocate confirmed that respondent No.5 has continued in employment. 7. The appointment of the respondent No.5 was against a notification issued by the Government for appointment of the post of Anganawadi Assistant. The respondent No.5 being the most meritorious was appointed though she was differently abled. Since merit alone is the criteria and as the respondent No.5 chose not to claim any advantage based on her being differently abled, we hold that the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order passed by the official respondents. No law and no force on earth can stop a differently abled person from competing in the general stream unless the post demands a particular level of physical fitness. In the absence of any material to show that the respondent No.5 was unable to perform her duties as an Anganawadi Assistant, her appointment could not have been cancelled by the official respondents. Since respondent No.5 has continued in employment for nearly ten years, it would be inappropriate to disturb settled position. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid finding, the W.A.No.1780/2014 filed by the State Government also stands dismissed.