JUDGMENT : 1. I am considering these two writ petitions together since, under challenge in them, is the same order issued by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Kerala ("Commissioner" for short). 2. The proceedings before the Commissioner began on an application made by Smt. Safeena A. -who has been arrayed as a respondent in both these matters, alleging that the Manager of the "Sunniyya Arabic College" (College for short) has appointed Sri. Aboobacker E.K. (petitioner in W.P.(C).No.9709 of 2022) as an Assistant Professor, in violation of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("RPwD Act" for short) 3. The specific contention of Smt.Safeena A. before the Commissioner was that the Manager of the College could not have filled up the post in question through a notification inviting candidates solely from the general category, since it ought to have been reserved for persons with disabilities under the "RPwD Act", because the Government of Kerala had issued orders as early as on 31.10.2019, implementing the said Act, fixing the roster posts for being filled up with various categories of persons with disabilities. She submitted before the Commissioner that since the vacancy in question can only be construed as being a “backlog one”, the notification could have invited persons with disabilities alone and not anybody from the general category; but that, in flagrant violation of the same, he issued the impugned one deliberately suppressing the afore fact and then appointed Sri.Aboobacker E.K. from the general category. 4. It transpires, from the impugned order of the Commissioner -a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C).No.5893 of 2022 and as Ext.P6 in W.P. (C).No.9709 of 2022, that the said Authority found in favour of Smt.Safeena A. and directed that the Manager of the College to issue “necessary order” for her appointment as Assistant Professor within three months. Certain corollary directions were also issued, including to the University of Calicut, not to approve the appointment of Sri.Aboobacker E.K.; and finally directing the Manager to file an action taken report under Section 81 of the RPwD Act. 5. The afore order of the Commissioner has been challenged by the Manager of the College in W.P. (C).No.5893 of 2022 and by Sri.Aboobacker E.K. in W.P. (C).No.9709 of 2022. 6. I have heard Sri. P.M. Pareeth – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.5893 of 2022; Sri. 5. The afore order of the Commissioner has been challenged by the Manager of the College in W.P. (C).No.5893 of 2022 and by Sri.Aboobacker E.K. in W.P. (C).No.9709 of 2022. 6. I have heard Sri. P.M. Pareeth – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.5893 of 2022; Sri. Peter Jose Christo -learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.9709 of 2022; Smt. P.K. Nandini – learned counsel - counsel appearing for Smt. Safeena A.; Sri. P.C. Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 7. Before I continue, I must upfront place on record certain concerns of this Court quathe impugned order of the Commissioner. For the first, the said order directs the Manager of the College to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Professor, though it is conceded that she belongs to the "loco-motor disabled category" and is not "blind" or "hearing impaired". This is crucial because, going by Section 34 of the RPwD Act, even if the post in question was one which was deserving of being reserved for candidates under its ambit, it could have been offered only to a "blind" candidate and to no one else. It is only if no such candidate is available and consequently, a fresh notification issued, wherein, again persons from the "blind" or "the hearing impaired" categories are not available, can a person like the petitioner, with locomotor disability, be considered. However, the Commissioner has travelled around these provisions merely saying that since "there was no claim for appointment in the college raised by a person belonging to blind/low vision category, the petitioner's claim for appointment under the locomotor disability/cerebral palsy is sustainable"(sic). 8. Obviously, the afore holdings of the Commissioner cannot find favour in law and the impugned order is axiomatically rendered liable to be set aside on that short ground alone. 9. That apart, and for the second, a question ought to have been raised and considered as to whether it was the vacancy in question which was liable to be reserved for persons under the "RPwD Act". This is because, going by the appointments made in the College from the year 1995, eight persons were offered placements until 2005; while the next post was offered to a person by name Sri. Muhmmed Mukthar P.P., on 01.07.2020. This is because, going by the appointments made in the College from the year 1995, eight persons were offered placements until 2005; while the next post was offered to a person by name Sri. Muhmmed Mukthar P.P., on 01.07.2020. I must, at this juncture, add that the aforementioned Sri. Muhmmed Mukthar P.P. is not a party to these cases, but that the fact remains that the first backlog vacancy under the "RPwD Act" could well have been the one which was offered to him. Of course, the contra argument of the Manager of the College and of Sri. Aboobacker E.K. is that the provisions of "RPwD Act" could have been implemented in the College only after the Government issued its subsequent order dated 18.05.2022 -a copy of which is on record as Ext.P11, along with W.P.(C).No.5893 of 2022. 10. Suffice to say, none of these issues have been considered by the Commissioner while the impugned order has been issued and the said Authority has presumed that the vacancy in question was the one liable to be reserved for persons under the "RPwD Act". This issue is portentous as far as the parties to this case is concerned because, there can be no doubt -it being conceded by all -that the College can concede only to one appointment under the "RPwD Act", whether it be a "backlog vacancy" or otherwise -it having made only 15 or so appointments from the year 1995, when it began functioning. 11. Indubitably, therefore, the afore legal and factual issues ought to have been considered by the Commissioner, before an order akin to the one impugned herein could have been issued. 12. At this time, I must certainly record the submission of Sri.Peter Jose Christo, that the claim of Smt.Safeena A. is unethical, because she is already working as a High School Assistant in a Government School, while his client was unemployed until he was offered the post in question by the College. However, I do not think that this argument is relevant or germane as far as the issues in controversy goes, since, they are exclusively in the realm of law, in the consideration which "ethical" constraints, if any, cannot, normally, apply. 13. However, I do not think that this argument is relevant or germane as far as the issues in controversy goes, since, they are exclusively in the realm of law, in the consideration which "ethical" constraints, if any, cannot, normally, apply. 13. That being so said, as I have already found above, the order of the Commissioner impugned in these writ petitions certainly cannot obtain the imprimatur of this Court and the matter will require to be reconsidered by the said Authority in its proper perspective. This is also because an assertion has been made at the Bar by Sri.Peter Jose Christo, that his client -Sri.Aboobacker E.K., had not been heard by the Commissioner. Resultantly, I order these writ petitions and set aside the orders impugned therein, namely Ext.P9 in W.P.(C).No.5893 of 2022 and Ext.P6 in W.P.(C).No.9709 of 2022; with a consequential direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the complaint of Smt.Safeena A., adverting to my observations above and after affording an opportunity of being heard to every party, including Sri.Aboobacker E.K.; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to all parties, status quo with respect to the appointment of Sri.Aboobacker E.K. will continue and if he has already been granted approval in terms of the earlier interim order of this Court, he will be eligible to draw salary and other entitled emoluments for the period he works.