ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Parth B. Thummar on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi on behalf of respondent no.1 – Selection Board and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi appearing for the respondent – State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for grant of following reliefs:- “(A) Be pleased to issue directions to respondent no.1 to consider petitioner as a person with benchmark disability in category C (One Arm One Length) instead of category C (Both Legs) and further be pleased to direct respondent no.1 to consider petitioner as duly qualified in Final Selection List dated 11.08.2023 (Annx P/8); or alternatively (B) Be pleased to quash the decision conveyed by Deputy Secretary of respondent no.2 vide letter dated 26.07.2023 to Secretary of respondent no.1 bearing No. SJED/Mis/e-file/17/2023/2320/CHH-1 (Annexure-P/5) and further be pleased to direct respondent no.1 to consider petitioner as duly qualified in Final Selection List dated 11.08.2023 (Annx P/8); (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal, be pleased to stay the decision conveyed by Deputy Secretary of respondent no.2 vide letter dated 26.07.2023 to Secretary of respondent no.1 bearing No. SJED/Mis/e-file/17/2023/2320/CHH-1 (Annexure-P/5) and be pleased to direct respondent no.1 to allow petitioner to proceed with further selection process; (C1) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal, be pleased to direct respondent no.1 to keep one seat vacant for petitioner. (C2) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal, be pleased to direct respondent no.1 to keep one seat vacant for petitioner in case after allotment of district to candidates in Final Selection List (Annexure-P/8) vacancy arises. (D) Be pleased to grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(C) of this petition; (E) Costs of this petition be awarded. (F) Such further and other relief, order or direction which may be just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the petition.” 3. The case of the present petitioner being that the respondent had advertised for selection to the post of Talati-cum-Mantri (Class-III) vide advertisement No.10/2021-22 on 27.01.2022 and whereas, though the petitioner’s name had appeared in the provisional merit list after the selection process, in the final merit list the name of the petitioner did not appear which prompted the petitioner to file the present petition. 3.1. 3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for appearing in the selection process in the category of persons with benchmark disability and whereas, the petitioner has ‘BL – both legs affected but not arms’ type of disability. It is the case of the petitioner that while the advertisement inter alia did not mention about the disability of the petitioner as being eligible for reservation in the selection process, yet, the petitioner had applied through a different category and whereas, the petitioner is now relying upon a resolution dated 09.06.2023 issued by the State Government whereby, the State Government had inter alia set out that a person having disability of BA i.e. both arms and BL i.e. both legs, would be entitled to reservation in the selection process including selection processes which were ongoing. 3.2. Learned advocate would submit that since the State Government has come out with a policy whereby even in ongoing selection processes persons with disabilities like the petitioner would be entitled for reservation, therefore, the case of the petitioner should be considered by the respondents for selection. 4. As against the same, the present petition is vehemently being opposed by learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi on behalf of respondent no.1 – Selection Board, more particularly, submitting that while the petitioner had in his online application mentioned his disability as OA-OL i.e. one arm and one leg category for the purpose of being eligible for reservation in the person with disability category, yet, upon verification of the disability certificate uploaded by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was having a disability of BL category which was not a category, for which, there was a reservation in the persons with disablement category. 4.1. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Joshi would draw the attention of this Court to Government Resolution dated 06.09.2021 whereby, the Government had notified the categories of disabilities for which reservation would be provided in selection, more particularly, for various Class-III posts in the Panchayat Service of the State. 4.2. Learned advocate would submit that, as such, even at the stage of inception, the State Government itself had not included the category of disablement which was suffered by the present petitioner as being eligible for reservation in the post of Talati-cum-Mantri (Class-III) in the Panchayat Services. 4.2. Learned advocate would submit that, as such, even at the stage of inception, the State Government itself had not included the category of disablement which was suffered by the present petitioner as being eligible for reservation in the post of Talati-cum-Mantri (Class-III) in the Panchayat Services. Learned advocate would submit that the advertisement, following the said resolution, also mentioned the categories as had been stated by the State Government in the said resolution. 4.3. Learned advocate further emphasize that the petitioner though suffering from disablement of both legs, had filled up the online application as being in the category of one arm one leg and whereas now, subsequently upon the Government Resolution dated 09.06.2023 being issued, the petitioner is seeking benefit of the same stating that the petitioner ought to have been considered in the BA/BL category by the respondents. 4.4. Learned advocate would further submit that though the Government Resolution inter alia states that persons with disablement of BA/BL would be entitled to participate in ongoing selection processes, yet, it would appear that vide a later communication addressed to the respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 had inter alia clarified that the present selection process would be exempt from the rigors of the resolution dated 09.06.2023. 4.5. Learned advocate would draw the attention of this Court to the communication dated 26.07.2023 and would submit that the State Government had inter alia conveyed to the respondent no.1 that since at the relevant time when the online forms were being accepted, if a person having the disability of BA/BL had filled up the form showing his disability under some category which disability was not suffered by the candidate but for which category there was a reservation, to ensure that there is no litigations on the said aspect, more particularly, since permitting such candidates to participate further might result in giving an impetus to persons who had indulged in malpractices, therefore, as far as the present selection process is concerned, the respondent no.1 was permitted not to consider cases of persons having BA/BL disability even though the said candidates had applied as having in some other category. 4.6. Learned advocate Mr. 4.6. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi would submit that since the present selection process is permitted to be exempted from the resolution dated 09.06.2023, more particularly, inspite of the said resolution stating that persons with disablement of BA/BL being eligible to appear in the said selection, therefore, the present petitioner may not have any case more particularly since it clearly appears that at the time of making application, the petitioner had shown a different category than the category of disablement suffered by him. 5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 5.1. The issue that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner who is having a disability certificate which shows that the petitioner is having disability in the BL (both legs) category should be deemed to be entitled to be permitted to participate further in the person with disability category, more particularly since in the application the petitioner had, for the purpose of availing benefit of reservation under the person with disability category, specified a disability other than the disability suffered by him. 5.2. In this regard, it requires to be noted that the State Government in compliance of the mandate under the ‘Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016’ issued Government Resolution dated 06.09.2021 whereby, the State had notified reservation of 4% in the person with disability category for Class-III posts in the Panchayat Service as well as notified the categories of disabilities which would entitle the persons with disabilities to claim reservation. It would also appear that the reservation, more particularly for the post in question i.e. Talati-cum-Mantri, did not specify the disability of BA/BL as being entitled for reservation. It would also appear that the advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 is in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 06.09.2021 as far as providing reservations to persons with disabilities are concerned. 5.3. It would also appear that the advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 is in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 06.09.2021 as far as providing reservations to persons with disabilities are concerned. 5.3. Having observed as above, it would also be required to be noted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner when he had made online application, had applied as a person with disablement category of OL-OA i.e. one leg and one arm disablement and whereas it would appear that the disablement, as submitted by the petitioner, is not corelatable with the disability certificate which has been annexed by the petitioner in the present petition which would show that the present petitioner suffers from the BL category of disablement. 5.4. The aspect of the disability under which category the petitioner had claimed reservation and the disability suffered by the petitioner not being in sync had come to the notice of the respondent no.1 at the stage of document verification, more particularly after the provisional merit list had been published. It is in this context that the candidature of the petitioner appears to have been disqualified. 5.5. The petitioner having applied for the reservation under the person with disability category showing that the petitioner was suffering from a disability for which there was a reservation, but, which disability was not suffered by the petitioner would not be heard to contend that inspite of having supplied wrong information, his candidature ought to have been considered and the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the process of selection. 5.6. Furthermore, while Government Resolution dated 09.06.2023 upon which reliance is placed by the petitioner inter alia permitted persons with BA/BL category to be eligible to appear in selection processes, more particularly even in case of selection processes which were in progress, yet, it would appear that the State Government has exempted vide communication dated 26.07.2023 the present selection process from the rigors of the Government Resolution dated 09.06.2023. It would also appear that the said exemption more particularly with a view to ensure that persons who had, while filling up of the online form, stated a wrong disability and had participated, then permitting them to compete under the head of BA/BL might be giving an impetus to persons having indulged in malpractices, therefore, the State Government had deemed it appropriate not to include the present selection process under the purview of Government Resolution dated 09.06.2023. Thus, the Government Resolution dated 09.06.2023 also would not advance the cause of the present petitioner. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above being the position insofar as Government Resolution dated 09.06.2023 upon which reliance has been placed by the present petitioner and whereas, since it would clearly appear that the petitioner was suffering from a disability, for which when the advertisement had been issued, there was no reservation and since, it would appear that the present petitioner had applied in a category of disablement which the petitioner was not suffering from, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the present petition stands disposed of as rejected.