JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. The petitioner, a differently abled candidate with locomotor disability, is included in the ranked list dated 31.05.2018 to the post of High School Assistant (Mathematics -Kannada Medium) in the Education Department in Kasaragod District. He is the sole candidate included in the list of differently abled candidates for appointment against 3% earmarked vacancies. The said vacancies are set apart to the low vision category as well as hearing impairment category. The vacancies set apart for differently abled persons remained unfilled for want of candidates belonging to the low vision category as well as hearing impairment category. Hence, the petitioner filed Annex.A5 representation dated 26.06.2019 to appoint him in the vacancy set apart for differently abled persons. Aggrieved by non consideration of Annex.A5, the petitioner had filed OA(Ekm) No.1078/2019, pursuant to which, on a direction given by the tribunal, the request of the petitioner was denied as per Annex.A7, wherein it was concluded that the category interchange cannot be allowed and the petitioner cannot be given advice and appointment. Challenging the same, the petitioner again approached the tribunal, and after an elaborate consideration of the issue, the tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by this, the petitioner is before this Court with this original petition. 2. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that despite non availability of candidates belonging to low vision and hearing impairment categories in the list, the vacancy against the turns for differently abled category is set apart for the said categories itself. According to him, in the absence of candidates with specific disability, the same was to be interchanged among other categories of differently abled candidates and the petitioner, being a candidate with locomotor disability, who alone is included in the ranked list, has to be considered. 3. It is relevant to refer to Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, “the Act”), which reads thus; “34. 3. It is relevant to refer to Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, “the Act”), which reads thus; “34. Reservation.-(1) xxxxxx (2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability: Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government.” 4. On a reading of Section 34(2) of the Act, it is clear that in any recruitment year, if any vacancy remained unfilled due to non-availability of a person with benchmark disability, then it has to be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year. Here, the case of the petitioner is that in the particular recruitment year when candidates in the low vision category and the hearing impairment category are not available, it has to be interchanged among other categories of differently abled candidates. The said averment is against the legal proposition. As far as Section 34(2) of the Act is concerned, the Act is very clear. When there is no ambiguity, in an Act, clarity prevails, leaving little room for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission referred to a decision of this Court in Sudha M. v. Kerala Agricultural University, Trichur & Others [ 2022 (4) KHC 727 ], wherein it has been held that the “recruitment year” is the year in which the recruitment takes place and not each successive year in which the vacancy exists; and “the recruitment year” is not the same as “the selection year”. However, we are not going into the correctness of the said judgment since no such issue arises in this case. However, we are not going into the correctness of the said judgment since no such issue arises in this case. The issue regarding the definition of “recruitment year” and “selection year” as held in Sudha M. (supra) is left open. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. The original petition is dismissed accordingly.