JUDGMENT Mrs. Lisa Gill, J. (Oral) Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside order dated 12.07.2023, Annexure P-l, passed by the learned Central Admin1strative Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby while issuing notice to the respondents in the OA filed by the petitioner, interim relief has been denied to the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that advertisement dated 15.03.2023, was issued by the respondent-department for appointment to the posts of Bus Conductor (Group-C) on regular basis with Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU). Last date for submission of the online applications was 10.04.2023. Petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that no posts have been kept reserved for the specific quota prescribed for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), despite the mandate of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'Disabilities Act, 2016), to reserve at least 4% of the total number of posts on the cadre strength in each group of posts. Petitioner claims to be suffering from Locomotor disability to the extent of 70%. 3. Petitioner accordingly filed Original Application (OA) No.616/2023, before the Central Admin1strative Tribunal, Chandigarh (CAT), seeking quashing of advertisement dated 15.03.2023 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that mandatory 4% reservation of posts of persons with disability as prescribed in the Disabilities Act, 2016 has not been carried out. Petitioner further sought advertisement for the posts in question. 4. During pendency of OA, petitioner sought stay of operation of the impugned advertisement/notification dated 15.03.2023 or in the alternate, he sought permission to participate in the selection process subject to decision of the OA with a further direction to the respondents to keep one post vacant till final decision of the OA. 5. Notice was issued by learned CAT in the OA filed by the petitioner on 12.07.2023, Annexure P-l, however interim relief was not afforded. 6. Aggrieved therefrom, present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interim relief seeking stay of the selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement or in the alternate to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process subject to final outcome of the OA has been wrongly and incorrectly declined to the petitioner. It is submitted that once there is a statutory mandate for reservation of the posts under Section 34 of the Disabilities Act 2016 Act, the advertisement itself needs to be set aside. It is submitted that once there is a statutory mandate for reservation of the posts under Section 34 of the Disabilities Act 2016 Act, the advertisement itself needs to be set aside. In this case, denial of interim relief works grave prejudice to the petitioner, who is 40 years of age and would be eligible to participate in the selection in case, reservation in the specific category is created (upper age limit as per advertisement dated 15.03.2023 is 32 years). 8. At this stage, Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Senior Standing counsel for UT Chandigarh, informs that in terms of proviso to Section 34 of the Disabilities Act 2016, exemption sought by the UT Admin1stration was granted by the competent authority, for direct/compassionate recruitment in case of Operation Staff i.e., Drivers and Conductors and Work Shop staff due to nature of job and CTU being operational and Commercial Department. Exemption was granted in November 2022 by the appropriate authority. It is only thereafter that advertisement dated 15.03.2023 has been issued. Therefore, present writ petition challenging an interlocutory order deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. At the outset, it is gainful to refer to Section 34 of the Disabilities Act, 2016. Exemption was granted in November 2022 by the appropriate authority. It is only thereafter that advertisement dated 15.03.2023 has been issued. Therefore, present writ petition challenging an interlocutory order deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. At the outset, it is gainful to refer to Section 34 of the Disabilities Act, 2016. Section 34 (1) of the Disabilities Act, 2016 reads as under:- "(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent, of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent, each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent, 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 clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities: Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instmctions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time: Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section." 11. Learned counsel for the UT Chandigarh has produced a copy of the noting before us to show grant of exemption by the competent authority. It is also not denied that petitioner had not applied for the post in question pursuant to advertisement dated 15.03.2023. Last date for submission of the applications for the said post was admittedly 10.04.2023. Petitioner at no point of time took any steps for permission to participate in the selection process. OA has been filed by the petitioner on 11.07.2023. Petitioner has clearly not been vigilant and is not entitled to the relief as claimed in this writ petition. 12. Last date for submission of the applications for the said post was admittedly 10.04.2023. Petitioner at no point of time took any steps for permission to participate in the selection process. OA has been filed by the petitioner on 11.07.2023. Petitioner has clearly not been vigilant and is not entitled to the relief as claimed in this writ petition. 12. In the given factual matrix of the case, we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the interlocutory order dated 12.07.2023, whereby interim relief has been denied to the petitioner. 13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy and the observations therein are only for the purpose of decision of this writ petition and would have no bearing on the pending OA before the learned CAT.