JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the Education Department, representing respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed (i) for setting aside the result notification dated 01.08.2019 in respect of Post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), claiming that the said post is reserved for Persons with Disability (Orthopedically); and (ii) for a direction upon the respondent no.3 to select the petitioner for appointment in the said post. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on 31.05.2018, an employment advertisement was issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “APPSC” for short) (i.e. respondent no.3) for filling up 62 (sixty two) posts of Assistant Professor for the Govt. Colleges of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the said advertisement, out of the said 62 posts, 10 (ten) posts were for Assistant Professor (Hindi). Out of the said 10 posts, 1 (one) post was reserved for Persons with Disability (Orthopedically) [hereinafter referred to as PwD(O)]. The petitioner has projected that he is a PwD(O) candidate and possesses the requisite qualification in terms of the said advertisement. Accordingly, the petitioner had offered his candidature for selection and appointment for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). The petitioner had appeared for an interview on 01.08.2019 and the results were declared by the respondent no.3 on 01.08.2019 itself. The grievance of the petitioner is that in an illegal and arbitrary manner, the result notification was published and the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was carried forward to the next recruitment on the ground that there was no candidate under PwD(O) category. It is projected that the candidature of the petitioner, who had secured 55.25 marks in the interview was ignored as he was not an Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) candidate. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the rejection of his candidature of despite being PwD(O), was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is projected that the candidature of the petitioner, who had secured 55.25 marks in the interview was ignored as he was not an Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) candidate. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the rejection of his candidature of despite being PwD(O), was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for 1 (one) post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), which was reserved for PwD(O) category and that as he had secured 55.25 marks, the rejection of his candidature was in total violation of the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Act”). It is also submitted that PwD is a class apart and must be treated as a horizontal reservation and therefore, there cannot be further reservation exclusively for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or General Category (i.e. unreserved class). It was also submitted that the advertisement dated 31.05.2018 did not mention about the reservation of post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) for APST and therefore, by applying APST reservation for posts earmarked for PwD(O), the rules of the game was changed after initiation of the recruitment process. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following cases, viz., (1) Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) Vs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association & Ors., (2009) 14 SCC 517 ; (2) K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512 ; (3) Mahesh Gupta & Ors. Vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 621 ; (4) Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 ; (5) Saidur Rahman Vs. the State of Assam & Ors., WP(C) 758/2019, decided on 14.02.2022. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has extensively referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no.1. It was submitted that as per the State Reservation Policy under Office Memorandum no. AR-158/2017/402 dated 13.11.2018, issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, it has been provided that in all direct recruitment/appointment and promotions, 80% posts are reserved for APST candidates, and that the remaining 20% posts are open for unreserved candidates. It was submitted that as per the State Reservation Policy under Office Memorandum no. AR-158/2017/402 dated 13.11.2018, issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, it has been provided that in all direct recruitment/appointment and promotions, 80% posts are reserved for APST candidates, and that the remaining 20% posts are open for unreserved candidates. It was submitted that in the event, APST candidates become eligible in the general merit, the 20% posts open for reserved or non-APST candidates, can also be filled up from amongst APST candidates. It was also submitted that under clause-4 of the said OM dated 13.11.2018, a “model roster of reservation with reference to posts for promotion and direct recruitment” has been calculated. As per the 100 point roster and by applying the State Reservation Policy of 80:20 for APST and Non-APST respectively, and after applying 4% of total cadre for reservation under the 2016 Act, as many as 5 positions of Assistant Professors were identified in PwD category, which included the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). It was further stated that as per the policy decision of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Education, by a communication bearing no. HE/CE-58/99 Pt./144 dated 01.03.2018, the Department of Education had informed the Secretary, APPSC about the subject-wise reservation quota meant for PwD candidates, stating therein to the effect that all the 5 posts under PwD(O) quota were reserved for APST candidates. By referring to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, it was submitted that the posts at serial number 1, 26, 51, 76 and 100 of the 100 point roster were reserved for APST PwD candidates. The said table which is appended to the hereinbefore referred letter dated 01.03.2018 is as follows: Sl. No. Subject No. of vacancies No. of Posts reserved for APST PwD Category 1. English 6 posts APST PwD – 1 Orthopedically Handicapped 2. Hindi 10 posts APST PwD – 1 -do 3. History 4 posts APST PwD – 1 -do 4. Economics 3 posts APST PwD – 1 -do 5. Geography 9 posts APST PwD – 1 -do 6. It would be pertinent to mention herein that two cases were referred to in paragraph-4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.1. However, there is absence of any citation in the statement. History 4 posts APST PwD – 1 -do 4. Economics 3 posts APST PwD – 1 -do 5. Geography 9 posts APST PwD – 1 -do 6. It would be pertinent to mention herein that two cases were referred to in paragraph-4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.1. However, there is absence of any citation in the statement. Moreover, in course of argument the complete case citation was not provided by the learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1. That relevant part of the statement made in para-4 of the affidavit-in-opposition is quoted below: “Moreover, the Supreme Court of India in its latest decision dated 12.02.2020 (Friday in the matter of DMLK & others Vs. Central Govt. ruled “reservation is not fundamental right” within the provision of Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) of Constitution of India. The Apex Court in its direction categorically stated “reservation is at the discretion of the Government” (either at state of central) and the court dismissed the petitions. Similarly, in another case of Uttarakhand Government, the Apex Court of India, on 05.09.2012 held “No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservation…. It is settled law that State Government cannot be directed to provide reservation for appointment in public posts. And it is for the State Government to decide whether reservation is required in the matter of appointment and promotion to public post.” 7. By referring to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 had submitted that out of 62 posts advertised to be filled up, 5 posts including the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was reserved for PwD(O) category. It was further submitted that in the employment advertisement dated 31.05.2018, it was inadvertently not mentioned that reservation in PwD(O) category was for APST candidates and not for unreserved category. In this regard, it was submitted that as per the herein before letter no. HE/CE-58/99 Pt./144 dated 01.03.2018 by the Education Department, 5 nos. of posts were reserved for APST PwD candidates. In the said context, the chart referred to herein before was reiterated. Accordingly, it was submitted that the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was reserved for APST and as the petitioner was not an APST candidate, the petitioner was not eligible for selection against the post reserved for APST candidate. of posts were reserved for APST PwD candidates. In the said context, the chart referred to herein before was reiterated. Accordingly, it was submitted that the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was reserved for APST and as the petitioner was not an APST candidate, the petitioner was not eligible for selection against the post reserved for APST candidate. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 had justified the reason for carrying forward the process of filling up the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) to the next recruitment examination. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that on facts, the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not applicable. 8. From the submissions made by the learned counsel/senior counsel for the appearing parties, three points arise for determination in this case, viz., a. Whether 4% reservation in respect of PwD category is on the total cadre or it is vacancy based reservation? b. Whether by applying APST reservation for posts earmarked for PwD(O), the rules of the game was changed after initiation of the recruitment process? c. Whether the post identified for PwD(O) can be further reserved for APST category? Point of determination no. (a): 9. The provisions of Rule 13(1) and 14(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as (“2018 Rules”), are quoted below:- “13. Computation of vacancies. (1) For the purposes of computation of vacancies, four percent (4%) of the total number of vacancies including vacancies arising in the identified and non-identified posts in the cadre strength in each group of posts shall be taken into account by the appropriate Government for the persons with benchmark disabilities.” “14. Reservation for Persons with Disabilities. (1) In every establishment four percent (4%) of vacancies shall be reserved for persons or class of persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one percent shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one percent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:- (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clause (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities.” 10. It may also be mentioned that under section 33 of the 2016 Act, provisions have been made for identification of posts for reservation. Accordingly, under Rule 11 of the 2018 Rules, provisions has been made for constituting an expert committee consisting of certain specified officials/persons for identification of posts for reservation. Section 33 of the 2016 Act is quoted below:- 33. Identification of posts for reservation. The appropriate Government shall— (i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 34; (ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and (iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years. 11. Thus, although PwD(O) is not covered by Section 33 of the 2016 Act read with Rule 14 of the 2018 Rules, but it is presumed that the competent Expert Committee of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, in its wisdom have identified, amongst others, the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) reserved for PwD(O). Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the provisions of section 33 of the 2016 Act and Rule 14(1) of the 2018 Rules, the Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the four percent (4%) reservation in respect of PwD category is on the total cadre or it is vacancy based reservation. The point of determination no. (a) is answered accordingly. Point of determination no. (b): 12. In the present case in hand, the respondents have been able to demonstrate that vide herein before letter dated 01.03.2018, the Department of Education had clarified to the APPSC that five identified posts of Assistant Professor in English, Hindi, History, Economics and Geography were earmarked for PwD(O), which were for APST category. Thus, the said communication is preceding the advertisement dated 31.05.2018. Accordingly, this is not a case where the rules of the game were altered during selection process. Therefore, the ratio of the case of (1) Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (supra), (2) K. Manjusree (supra), (3) Hemani Malhotra (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the present case. The point of determination no. (b) is answered accordingly. Point of determination no. (c): 13. Therefore, the ratio of the case of (1) Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (supra), (2) K. Manjusree (supra), (3) Hemani Malhotra (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the present case. The point of determination no. (b) is answered accordingly. Point of determination no. (c): 13. Under clause-4 of the OM dated 13.11.2018, “model roster of reservation with reference to posts for promotion and direct recruitment” has been provided for. At serial no. 62 thereof, it is provided that when the posts are 62 (sixty-two), 80% reservation would numerically be 49.6 and therefore, as per column-3 thereof, posts reserved for APST is rounded to 49 (forty-nine). Accordingly, 13 (thirteen) posts would be available for unreserved category candidates. However, the pleaded stand of the respondent no.1 is to the effect that as per herein before referred Govt. letter dated 01.03.2018, all five PwD posts has gone in favour of APST, being the 1st, 26th, 51st, 76th, and 100th posts in the 100 point roster. 14. In the said regard, it may be mentioned that by notification dated 21.11.2018 the 2018 Rules was notified, and the said Rules came into force on 14.12.2018, the date of its publication in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette. Rule 15 thereof is quoted below: “15. Maintenance of Rosters: (1) All establishments shall maintain a separate 100 point reservation for determining/effecting reservation for the persons with benchmark disabilities. (2) Each register shall have cycle of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into four blocks, comprising the following points: 1st Block- Point no.1 to point no.25 2nd Block- Point no.26 to point no.50 3rd Block- Point no.51 to point no.75 4th Block- Point no.76 to point no.100.” (3) Point 1, 26, 51 and 76 of the roster shall be earmarked and reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities- one point for each of the three categories of benchmark disabilities mentioned in clauses (a),(b) and (c) and one point for categories of benchmark disabilities mentioned in clause (d) and (e) of Rule 14(1). The head of the establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1, 26, 51 and 76 shall be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts. (4) All the vacancies shall be entered in the relevant roster register. The head of the establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1, 26, 51 and 76 shall be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts. (4) All the vacancies shall be entered in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at Point no.1 is not identified for the persons with benchmark disabilities or the head of the establishment considers it desirable not to fill up by a person with benchmark disabilities for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points falling from point 2 to 25 shall be treated as reserved for the persons with benchmark disabilities and filled as such. Likewise a vacancy falling at any of the points from 26 to 50 or from 51 to 75 or from 76 to 100 shall be filled by the persons with benchmark disabilities. The purpose of keeping points 1, 26, 51 and 76 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy from 1 to 25, first available suitable vacancy from 26 to 50, first available suitable vacancy from 51 to 75 and first available suitable vacancy from 76 to 100 by persons with benchmark disabilities. (5) If in case none of the vacancies from 1 to 25 is suitable for any category of the persons with benchmark disabilities, then two vacancies from 26 to 50 shall be filled as reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. if the vacancies from 26 to 50 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 51 to 76. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried into the next block. (6) After all the 100 points in the roster have been covered a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start. (7) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as only to cover one block or two, discretion as to which category of the disabled should be accommodated first shall vest in the head of the establishment, who shall decide on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc.” 15. Thus, it is seen that under Rule 15 of the 2018 Rules, further reservation of posts identified for being filled up by PwD is envisaged either for reserved APST and/or unreserved category. 16. There is absolutely no dispute that in terms of the provisions of 2016 Act and 2018 Rules, out of 10 (ten) vacant posts of Assistant Professor in Hindi, 1 (one) post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was reserved for PwD(O). As per the employment advertisement of the APPSC (respondent no.3), bearing no. PSC-R (B) 02/2018 dated 31.05.2018, the details of post in various disciplines in form of a chart is as follows:- Sl. No. Discipline/Subject No. of posts Post Reserved for APST Un-reserved PwD (Orthopedically) 1 English 6 4 1 1 2 Hindi 10 7 2 1 3 History 4 4 - - 4 Political Science 5 3 1 1 5 Economics 3 2 - 1 6 Physics 5 4 1 - 7 Education 9 8 1 - 8 Geography 9 7 1 1 9 Chemistry 2 2 - - 10 Zoology 2 2 - - 11 Botany 2 2 - - 12 Mathematics 3 3 - - 13 Commerce 2 2 - - 17. Thus, when in the 2016 Act and 2018 Rules, there is no provision by virtue of which any further reservation of posts earmarked for PwD is envisaged. Therefore, in the context of the present case in hand, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had no power or authority to have the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) reserved exclusively for APST category alone under the purported 100 point roster, thereby reserving point no. 1st, 26th, 51st, 76th and 100th posts for APST persons with benchmark disabilities in light of the fact that under Rule 15 of the 2018 Rules, there is no prescription for having further reservation for APST and/or unreserved category. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that in the employment advertisement dated 31.05.2018, the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), was reserved for PwD(O) category. The said advertisement dated 31.05.2018 appears to be in consonance with the requirement of the 2016 Act and 2018 Rules. 18. Under the said employment advertisement, 62 posts of Assistant Professors in various disciplines were advertised. Thus, as per “model 100 point roster” contained in the OM dated 13.11.2018, 49 (forty-nine) posts out of 62 (sixty-two) posts was required to be reserved for APST candidates. 18. Under the said employment advertisement, 62 posts of Assistant Professors in various disciplines were advertised. Thus, as per “model 100 point roster” contained in the OM dated 13.11.2018, 49 (forty-nine) posts out of 62 (sixty-two) posts was required to be reserved for APST candidates. Accordingly, 13 (thirteen) posts ought to have been for unreserved category candidates. However, as per the advertisement dated 31.05.2018, it is observed that out of 62 posts, 50 posts were reserved for APST reserved candidates, which is one (1) post more than the permissible 49 posts for APST candidates. Moreover, seven (7) posts are kept for unreserved category candidates, and remaining five (5) posts had been reserved for PwD(O). Thus, the inevitable conclusion of the Court is that as against thirteen (13) unreserved category posts, by way of the said advertisement for only seven (7) posts are provided for the unreserved category, which comes to 11.2903%, i.e. much less than 20% posts earmarked for unreserved category candidates in the ratio of 80: 20 (APST and non-APST category). Thus, the Court is constrained to hold that out of 13 posts [i.e. 20% (twenty percent)] available for unreserved category candidates, hundred percent (100%) reservation has been made for APST category in respect of five (5) posts earmarked for PwD(O) category. Accordingly, out of 62 posts advertised, 55 (i.e. 50 as APST reserved and 5 PwD(O) reserved for APST] posts has been reserved exclusively for APST category, which technically and arithmetically makes reservation for APST to the extent of 88.7097% (eighty-eight point seven-zero-nine-seven percent). 19. In the case of Mahesh Gupta (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court of India had held that the disabled is a disabled and therefore, the question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or religion ordinarily may not rise as they constitute a special class. Para-10, 11 and 12 thereof is quoted below:- “10. The State in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India may make two types of reservations - vertical and horizontal. Article 16(4) provides for vertical reservation; whereas Clause (1) of Article 16 provides for horizontal reservation. 11. The State adopted a policy decision for filling up the reserved posts for handicapped persons. A special drive was to be launched therefor. The circular letter was issued only for the said purpose. Article 16(4) provides for vertical reservation; whereas Clause (1) of Article 16 provides for horizontal reservation. 11. The State adopted a policy decision for filling up the reserved posts for handicapped persons. A special drive was to be launched therefor. The circular letter was issued only for the said purpose. A bare perusal of the said circular letter dated 29-3-1993 would clearly show that the State had made 3% reservation for blinds and 2% for other physically handicapped persons. Such a reservation falling within Clause (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution has nothing to do with the object and purport sought to be achieved by reason of Clause (4) thereof. 12. Disability has drawn the attention of the worldwide community. India is a signatory to various International Treaties and Conventions. The State, therefore, took a policy decision to have horizontal reservation with a view to fulfil its constitutional object as also its commitment to the international community. A disabled is a disabled. The question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or religion ordinarily may not arise. They constitute a special class. The advertisement, however, failed to mention in regard to the reservation for handicapped persons at the outset, but, as noticed hereinbefore, the vacant posts were required to be filled up for two categories of candidates; one for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates and other for handicapped candidates. Handicapped candidates have not been further classified as belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and general category candidates.” 20. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. M. Selvakumar and Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 504 . It may be mentioned that in the case of Saidur Rahman (supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a coordinate Bench of this Court, by applying the ratio laid down in the two herein before referred cases of Mahesh Gupta (supra) and M. Selvakumar and Anr. (supra), was of the unhesitant opinion that having reserved four vacancies to be filled up by the PwD candidates and having permitted the general category candidates to participate in the recruitment process there was no scope for the authorities to further reserve those four vacancies in PwD category to be filled up only by candidates belonging to OBC/MOBC or ST (H) category. In the present case in hand, the employment advertisement dated 31.05.2018 did not indicate that those posts for PwD(O) were further reserved only for APST candidates. However, as per the chart appended to letter no. HE/CE-58/99 Pt./144 dated 01.03.2018 of the Education Department, which is also extracted herein before, all the five posts earmarked for PwD(O) are found to be reserved for APST category. This means that the reservations for APST for the 62 posts advertised would be 55 out of 62 which would come to 88.7097%, thereby exceeding the reservation quota for APST category, which could not have exceeded the limit of 80% (eighty percent). Therefore, viewed from this angle the reservation of post of the Assistant Professor (Hindi) for APST PwD candidate is not found sustainable on facts and in law. 21. In the present case in hand, the State Government had undertaken its statutory obligation to identify, amongst others, the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) to be reserved for PwD(O), i.e. Persons with Disabilities (Orthopedically). Nonetheless, the State Government in the Department of Education is held to have committed gross illegality in further making sub-classification of the said post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) subject to further reservation for APST category alone. The provisions of Rule 14(1) of the 2018 Rules, provides that in every establishment four percent (4%) of the vacancies shall be reserved for persons or class of persons with benchmark disabilities and that under the provisions of Rule 15 of the 2018 Rules, no provisions has been made for any further sub-classification and/or reservation based on caste, creed and religion. Thus, viewed from the said angle also, the respondents could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner, who is of PwD(O) category on the ground that the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was reserved exclusively for being filled up by APST candidate, more particularly when there was no other contender of the said post. 22. Thus, the point of determination no. (c) is answered by holding that the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), which was identified for PwD(O) i.e. Persons with Disabilities (Orthopedically) cannot be further reserved exclusively for APST category candidates. 23. In the result this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 22. Thus, the point of determination no. (c) is answered by holding that the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), which was identified for PwD(O) i.e. Persons with Disabilities (Orthopedically) cannot be further reserved exclusively for APST category candidates. 23. In the result this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The petitioner is found to the following reliefs:- (a) The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary (respondent no.3) is directed to declare and/or notify the result of the petitioner in respect of his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) against vacancies reserved for being filled up by “Persons with Disabilities (Orthopedically) category [i.e. PwD(O)]. The said exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30 (thirty) days from the date when a certified copy of this order is served in the office of the respondent no.3; and (b) Upon declaration and/or notification of result of the petitioner by the respondent no.3, thereby recommending for appointment of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Higher Education Department (respondent no.1) is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the vacant post of Assistant Professor in Hindi, reserved for being filled up by Persons with Disabilities (Orthopedically) category [i.e. PwD(O)], by ignoring the letter no. HE/CE-58/99 Pt./144 dated 01.03.2018 by the Under Secretary (Education), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh to the Secretary APPSC (Annexure-II) to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.1; and (c) It is further provided that the selection and appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) shall relate back to the result notification dated 01.08.2019, by which the select list was published by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to employment advertisement dated 31.05.2018. Thus, except for payment of salary and other emoluments, notional benefits and seniority of the petitioner shall be counted from such date. (d) The aforesaid exercise as indicated in sub-para -(b) and (c) above of notifying the result/select-list shall be carried out and completed by the respondent no.1 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 60 days from the date of publication of the selection result by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The petitioner shall also serve a certified copy of this order on the respondent no.1 separately. 24. The petitioner shall also serve a certified copy of this order on the respondent no.1 separately. 24. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 25. The parties are left to bear their own costs.