ORDER : (Sameer Jain, J.) 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the actions of the respondents whereby they have not identified the post of School Lecturer for Physically Disabled Candidates, which is non-compliance of the notification dated 24.08.2022 issued by Central Government. 2. The nitty-gritty of the instant matter is that an advertisement dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure-1) was issued by the respondents inviting applications for the post of School Lecturer (Geography) under Rajasthan Education (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021. The petitioner being disabled applied for the said post under the Locomotor Disabled Category however, candidature of the petitioner for the said post was not considered under the said category. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the total number of posts advertised for the said post for Locomotor Disability/ Cerebral Palsy Category were five in number. It is further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from Spinal Deformity/ Spinal Injury disability. 4. Moreover, in the advertisement said post was reserved for the specific LD/CP disabled candidates, since the said disability of the petitioner is not reflected in the impugned advertisement therefore, the petitioner could not apply in the said sub-category. 5. Nevertheless, the respondent authorities have not considered the notification dated 24.08.2022 issued by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, whereby exercising the powers conferred upon by the Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Central Government made the amendment in the notification dated 04.01.2021 and incorporated the separate sub-category i.e., Spinal Deformity/ Spinal Injury without any associated neurological/limb dysfunction under the Locomotor Disability (Annexure-5). The said amendment via Note 10 is reiterated as below: - “Note 10: A separate sub category i.e. Spinal Deformity (SD) and Spinal Injury (SI) without any associated neurological/limb dysfunction shall be incorporated under Locomotor Disability in addition to OA, OL, BA, BL, OAL, BLOA and BLA. Thus, all the posts identified in the list stands identified suitable for persons with SD/SI without neurological/limb dysfunction. Persons with SD/SI with associated limb dysfunction shall be covered under the respective sub category such as OA, OL, BA, BL, OAL, BLOA and BLA, as the case may be.” 6. Thus, all the posts identified in the list stands identified suitable for persons with SD/SI without neurological/limb dysfunction. Persons with SD/SI with associated limb dysfunction shall be covered under the respective sub category such as OA, OL, BA, BL, OAL, BLOA and BLA, as the case may be.” 6. Subsequently, an office memorandum dated 07.09.2022 was passed by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, wherein it was stated that all the posts identified in the list stands suitable for persons in SD/SI disability (Annexure-6). The relevant portion is reiterated as below: - “3. As per the notification dated 29.08.2022, it has now been mandated that a separate sub category i.e. Spinal Deformity (SD) and Spinal Injury (SI) without any associated neurological/limb dysfunction shall be incorporated under Locomotor Disability in addition to OA, OL, BA, BL, OAL, BLOA and BLA. Thus, all the posts identified in the list stands identified suitable for persons with SD/SI without neurological/limb dysfunction.” 7. Lastly, while placing reliance upon the dictum encapsulated in the judgment dated 17.01.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9974/2023 titled as Shalini Savita vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., it is submitted that on akin factual narrations the spinal deformity was recognized as one of the physical disabilities, and State qua the same was directed to provide the necessary benefits to the concerned persons. Therefore, respondent authorities have not complied with the said judgment and rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the said post. 8. In light of the above mentioned, learned counsel has submitted that overlooking the spinal deformity/injury, of the petitioner and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary, against the notifications, and spirit of the Act of 2016, and in violation of rights enshrined under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel representing RPSC and State have admitted the disability of the petitioner and notification dated 24.08.2022 as well as office memorandum dated 07.09.2022. Howsoever, emphasized on the definition of “Appropriate Government” and submitted that as per the provision of Section 2(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short “Act, 2016”), the same has two parts to it i.e., Central Government and State Government; functioning independently, therefore the Board/Authorities works in under their independent domain thus, Central Government notifications are not binding upon the State. 10. 10. It is further submitted that there is no ipso facto application of the above stated notification and office memorandum. 11. Furthermore, it is submitted that the provisions of Section 101 of the Act, 2016 provide power to the State Government to make rules, subject to the previous publication, for carrying out the provisions of this Act, therefore if petitioner had any grievance, the same can be raised by challenging the provision/ Rule itself. 12. It is further submitted that respondent-RPSC is merely an agency, who carries out the directions of the State. 13. Heard and considered. 14. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, assiduously scanned the records, considering the judgment cited at Bar, this Court at this juncture deems it apposite to down certain undisputed facts: 14.1. That the petitioner suffer from 45% of loco-motor disability, of the nature of spinal disorder. 14.2. That the respondents have recognized petitioners’ disability however the said post in the advertisement dated 25.10.2024 for horizontal reservation is not reserved. 14.3. That under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, 2016, vide notification dated 24.08.2022 disability of the petitioner was incorporated as a sub-category. 14.4. That upon perusal of the Section 33 and Section 2(b) of the Act, 2016, it is noted that the said Act identifies the disability of the petitioner to be considered for the said post under the requisite reserved category. 14.5. That the term “Appropriate Government” includes State as well as Central Government, and qua the addition of said disability, an expert committee was constituted for incorporation of the benchmark disabilities, thereafter the said disability as that of petitioner was incorporated and added. 14.5. That the term “Appropriate Government” includes State as well as Central Government, and qua the addition of said disability, an expert committee was constituted for incorporation of the benchmark disabilities, thereafter the said disability as that of petitioner was incorporated and added. The relevant extract from the said Act is reproduced herein below: “(2) (b) “appropriate Government” means,— (i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment wholly or substantially financed by that Government, or a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006), the Central Government; (ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment, wholly or substantially financed by that Government, or any local authority, other than a Cantonment Board, the State Government.” 14.6 That upon perusal of the notification dated 23.01.2019 issued by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Section 101 of the Act of 2016, and meeting proceeding details dated 24.01.2022 issued by the State Government i.e. Appropriate Government, this Court has noted that Rule 5 of the notification dated 23.01.2019 provides for the reservation of vacancies i.e., the posts which have been identified for the disabled persons by the Government of India, under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, 2016 shall be recognized for the reservation under the Rule 5 as per the said notification, the same implies that the parity is maintained by the State Government with the Central Government. The relevant portion of Chapter-III (Special Provision for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities), Rule 5 is reproduced as below: - “5. Reservation of Vacancies:- (1) In every establishment 4% percent of the vacancies of direct recruitment in the cadre shall be reserved for persons or class of persons with benchmark disabilities according to the Section 34 of the Act. In the posts identified for each disability by the Government of India under Section 33 and such reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation and the vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities shall be maintained as a separate class: Provided that where the nomenclature of any post in the State Government is different from the post in Government of India or any post in the State Government does not exist in any department of the Government of India, the matter shall be referred to the Committee constituted under rule 6 for identification of the equivalent post in the State Government. The Committee shall identify the equivalent post on the basis of nature of job and responsibility of each post.” 14.7 The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be misconceived and the fact that there is no ipso facto application of the notification becomes otiose on account of following reasons: - 14.7.1 Provisions of Section 101 of the Act of 2016 which provides power to the State Government to make Rules, categorically depicts that the said rule has to be in consistency with the main provisions of the Act of 2016. 14.7.2 Section 33 of the Act of 2016 refers to Appropriate Government which includes State Government. 14.7.3 Rule 5 in the notification dated 23.01.2019 categorically specifies that whatever notification is issued under Section 33 of the Act, 2016, same ought to be applicable upon the State. 14.8 Lastly, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on account of the fact that the same is not challenged and is still in operation, becomes a binding precedence. 15. In light of the above, this Court deems it apposite to allow the present petition. The non consideration of spinal deformity/spinal injury in the advertisement dated 25.10.2024 needs correction. 16. This Court directs the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner according to the merit in the reservation category and disability qua spinal deformity is a recognized disability under the said disabled category therefore, the same shall be added in the said advertisement and due benefit be given to the petitioner in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.