ORDER : 1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(i) The respondents may be directed to declare the humble petitioner qualified in the Pre Examination and allow the petitioner to participate in the RAS Main Examination-2021; (ii) Or in alternate the respondents may directed to conduct separate preliminary examination of the humble petitioner. (iii) A direction may also be issued to the State Government and All the Examining Authorities for smoothly allowing the blind person for participating in any examination and appropriate instructions in this regard may be ordered to be circulated in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules framed there under and the guidelines/instructions issued from time to time. (iv) That even for harassment and mental agony that has been sustained by the humble petitioner respondent RPSC may be directed to provide compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs. (v) Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of he case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The factual stipulations, giving rise to the cause and controversy, as spelled out in the instant petition, are briefly noted herein-under:- 2.1. That the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement dated 20.07.2021 for recruitment in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services. 2.2. That the petitioner, possessing the requisite eligibility qualifications, applied for the examination. In this regard, it is noted that the petitioner belongs to the Physically Challenged (Blind) Category with 100% Blindness. 2.3. That subsequently, the petitioner was issued an admit card by the respondent-RPSC for participation in the Preliminary Examination, scheduled to be conducted on 27.10.2021 from 10:00 AM to 01:00 PM in Alwar. 2.4 That meanwhile, the respondent-RPSC issued guidelines/instructions regarding the procuring of and/or arranging a scribe. 2.5. That on 27.10.2021, when the petitioner reached the examination centre, he was not permitted to appear in the examination. 2.6. That the reasons provided by the respondent-RPSC in order to preclude the petitioner’s participation in the concerned examination were threefold, namely:- (i) That the petitioner did not intimate the respondent-RPSC, two days in advance, regarding the details of his scribe, for carrying out necessary procedural formalities. (ii) That the petitioner did not carry along with him his medical certificate showcasing his disability, at the examination centre. (ii) That the petitioner did not carry along with him his medical certificate showcasing his disability, at the examination centre. (iii) That the petitioner reached the examination centre at 9:45AM along with his scribe, leaving very little time i.e. 15 minutes, for the respondent-RPSC to conduct necessary inquiry etc, before the scheduled time for the examination i.e. 10:00AM. 2.7 That resultantly, on account of being denied permission to participate in the examination, the petitioner was compelled to leave the examination centre. 2.8 That thereafter, being aggrieved of the impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Secretary, RPSC encapsulating his grievance(s). However, no heed was paid to the same. 2.9. That as a result of said non-consideration of the representation as well as the impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition. 3. In light of the foregoing factual narration, the petitioner while arguing in-person, submitted that the impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC were not only illegal and contrary to the settled position of law and the rules/guidelines framed in connection therewith, but also against the tenets of societal morality. In this regard, the petitioner argued that the instructions provided by the respondent-RPSC, prior to the scheduled examination, only imposed upon the candidates the requirement to intimate the respondent-RPSC qua the subscription of a scribe two days in advance, in an eventuality, where the scribe was to be arranged for the candidate by the respondent-RPSC. However, in the case of the petitioner, the scribe was duly arranged by the petitioner himself, which was permitted in the scheme of the examination issued by the respondent-RPSC. Therefore, the ground adopted by the respondent-RPSC qua the petitioner not having informed the authorities qua the details of his scribe two days prior, cannot be deemed to be justified in law. 4. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that as per the scheme of the examination, the candidates were only permitted to carry very limited items/belongings with them during the examination, such as the E-Admit Card, photograph of the candidate measuring 2.5cm x 2.5cm, ID card and a blue ball pen. Therefore, the act of preclusion from appearing in the examination citing non-possession of the medical certificate was wholly arbitrary. Therefore, the act of preclusion from appearing in the examination citing non-possession of the medical certificate was wholly arbitrary. The petitioner also submitted that as per the scheme of the respondent-RPSC, the candidates were required to reach the examination centre, one hour prior to the schedule time of examination. In due compliance of the same, the petitioner arrived at the concerned centre at 09:00AM. However, on account of procedural obstacles created by the administrative staff of the respondent-RPSC, such as repeatedly pestering the petitioner to show his medical certificate, the petitioner was prevented from reaching the examination hall timely, on account of which, he marked his attendance therein, at 09:45AM. 5. Therefore, placing reliance upon the arguments noted above, it was conclusively argued by the petitioner-in-person, that the impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC were contrary to their own examination guidelines as well as the law applicable. However, having made the submissions noted-above, the petitioner fairly conceded before the Court that Prayer nos. 1 and 2 have become infructuous on account of the selection process having attained finality. Therefore, the only prayer, which subsists as on date, is Prayer No.3 pertaining to the award of cost for the agony caused to the petitioner, in sync with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter, Act of 2016) and the Rules framed in connection therewith. Lastly, in support of the arguments noted above, reliance was placed upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated in S.B. CWP No. 4192/2017 titled as Kuldeep Jaiman vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and S.B. CWP No. 413/2019 titled as Rajbala vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC fairly conceded before the Court that horizontal reservation was accorded to disabled candidates. However, it was argued that in terms of the general and specific guidelines, which formed part of the advertisement dated 20.07.2021, in order to enjoy the privilege of a scribe, the candidate had to intimate the respondent-RPSC two days prior to the date of the examination, for the latter to make necessary arrangements/carry out requisites qua the scribe. Moreover, the candidate was also under the mandatory obligation to carry along with him his medical certificate exhibiting claimed disability, for ascertainment/noting/verification of the same at the end of the respondent-RPSC. Moreover, the candidate was also under the mandatory obligation to carry along with him his medical certificate exhibiting claimed disability, for ascertainment/noting/verification of the same at the end of the respondent-RPSC. In this regard, learned counsel averred that petitioner has only placed reliance upon the specific conditions prescribed by the advertisement and not the general conditions noted incorporated therein. Moreover, to ascertain the candidature of the petitioner in the examination, a special committee was constituted by the respondent-RPSC comprising In-charge Examination Centre and Assistant Central Superintendent, which took the decision to debar the petitioner from appearing in the examination. Therefore, as the petitioner did not comply with the scheme of the examination as incorporated in the advertisement so issued and/or did not exhibit his bonafides qua the relaxation claimed, by way of carrying the medical certificate, the petitioner cannot be awarded cost, especially when the petitioner failed to effectuate compliance of the pre-intimated guidelines in letter and spirit. 7. Heard the petitioner-in-person as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC, scanned the record of the petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar. 8. At the outset, this Court after having conscientiously perused through the record of the instant petition, deems it in the interest of justice to take note of the admitted and/or undisputed factual considerations, adept to assist the Court in addressing the lis at hand. They are spelled out herein-under:- 8.1. That the respondent-RPSC duly recognizes/confers horizontal reservation upon persons with disabilities. The said recognition/conferment is in tandem with the scheme of the Act of 2016 and the rules framed in connection therewith. 8.2 That resultantly, vide Advertisement dt. 27.01.2021 i.e. Annexure-1, the respondent-RPSC expressly incorporated the said conferment of horizontal reservation upon the candidates with disabilities. 8.3 That the petitioner belonged to the head of Physically Challenged (Blind) Category, in terms of the Advertisement dt. 27.01.2021. Qua the petitioner’s 100% visual impairment, a certificate issued by a competent authority, exhibiting/vetting the said fact, is placed on record i.e. Annexure-3. 8.4 That the admit card issued in favour of the petitioner, by the respondent-RPSC i.e. Annexure-4, categorically reflects that the said card was issued under the Blind Category. 27.01.2021. Qua the petitioner’s 100% visual impairment, a certificate issued by a competent authority, exhibiting/vetting the said fact, is placed on record i.e. Annexure-3. 8.4 That the admit card issued in favour of the petitioner, by the respondent-RPSC i.e. Annexure-4, categorically reflects that the said card was issued under the Blind Category. 8.5 That as per the Online Application Form of the petitioner i.e. Annexure-2, under the head of ‘Applicant’s Details’, it is categorically reflected that from the very beginning i.e. date of filling of the said form significantly prior to the scheduled date of examination, the petitioner had categorically made it clear that the petitioner shall be engaging the service/aid of a scribe whilst appearing in the examination. At the same time, in the same very form, the petitioner had also exercised the option to note that he shall be bringing his own scribe and not engaging the one provided by the Department/RPSC. 8.6 That Annexure-4 i.e. Guidelines/Notice for the Examination, as issued by the respondent-RPSC itself, categorically noted that the candidates appearing in the examination, were strictly prohibited to carry any items/documents with them for the examination, except for those provided in the said guidelines/notice i.e. E-Admit Card, photograph of the candidate measuring 2.5cm x 2.5cm, ID card and a blue ball pen. Moreover, the said guidelines/notice also required the candidates to arrive at the examination centre, an hour prior to the scheduled time, for the purpose of meeting out the procedural requirements of security and identification. The relevant extract i.e. Guideline 3 and 4, are reproduced herein-under:- 1- ijh{kk ds fnu ijh{kk dsUnz ij dsoy fuEu lkexzh ykuh gS%& ¼v½ bZ&,MfeV dkMZA ¼c½ 2-5 lseh- x 2-5 lseh lkbt dk uohure jaxhu QksVks ¼mifLFkfr i=d ij fpidkdj ykosaxs½A ¼l½ uhyh L;kgh dk ikjn'khZ ckWy isuA ¼n½ QksVks ;qDr igpku i=A 2- ijh{kk ds fnu ijh{kk izkjEHk gksus ds fy, fu;r le; ls ,d ?kUVk iwoZ ijh{kk dsUnz ij vko';d :i ls mifLFkr gks tkosa rkfd lqj{kk tkap ,oa igpku dk dk;Z le; ij iw.kZ gks ldsA nsjh ls vkus ij ryk'kh esa le; yxus ds dkj.k ijh{kk esa 'kkfey gksus ls oafpr gks ldrs gSa] vr% le; ij mifLFkr gksuk lqfuf'pr djsA 8.7 That as per Annexure-5 i.e. Special Instructions Regarding the Engagement of a Scribe, two distinct mechanisms for opting for a scribe were provided. The first option, as exercised by the petitioner, pertained to the candidate bringing their own scribe. Whereas, the second option, pertained to the candidate requesting the respondent-RPSC to provide them with a scribe. In an eventuality, where the candidate did not bring their own scribe, Instruction No. 5 was invoked, mandating such candidates to intimate the respondent-RPSC two days prior to the examination, to make necessary arrangements for making available the scribe on the date of the examination. For reference, said Instruction No.5 is reproduced herein-under:- Jqrys[kd (Scribe) ds laca/k esa fo'ks’k funsZ'k 1- vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kkvksa esa fo'ks’k ;ksX;tu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Lo;a dk Jqrys[kd (Scribe) ykus gsrq vuqer fd;k tkrk gSA 2- ,sls vH;FkhZ tks Lo;a dk Jqrys[kd (Scribe) ugha ykrs gS] mUgas iwokZuqlkj ijh{kk ls nks fnu iwoZ okafNr fpfdRlk izek.k&i=ksa lfgr mifLFkr gksdj Jqrys[kd (Scribe) dh lqfo/kk miyC/k djk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk fd;s tkus ij dsUnzk/kh{kd }kjk Jqrys[kd (Scribe) dh O;oLFkk dh tkosxhA bl gsrq mUgs vius vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds le; Jqrys[kd (Scribe) dh miyC/krk Lrj ds fodYi dk p;u vkosnu ds le; mDr izdkj ds fodYi dh lqfo/kk miyC/k gksus ij djuk gksxkA 8.8 That for the candidates with disabilities, such as the petitioner with 100% visual impairment, the Central Government i.e. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as well as the State Government i.e. Social Justice and Empowerment Department, vide circulars dated 29.08.2018 and 25.01.2018, duly recognized the right of persons with benchmark disabilities to exercise their discretion for opting for their own scribe/reader/lab assistant whilst simultaneously keeping the option open for them to request the examination body to provide them with the same. Qua the second option, the respondent-RPSC has itself formulated guidelines, as referred above, requiring candidates to intimate the respondent-RPSC regarding their need for a scribe two days in advance. However, no such requirement is penned down for candidates who seek to bring their own scribe. 9. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the stipulations/observations noted above, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC, by way of which the petitioner was precluded from appearing in the concerned examination, were wholly arbitrary and sans any valid authority in law. 9. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the stipulations/observations noted above, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC, by way of which the petitioner was precluded from appearing in the concerned examination, were wholly arbitrary and sans any valid authority in law. In this regard, it is noted as follows:- (a) The primary ground adopted by the respondent-RPSC for precluding the petitioner from appearing in the concerned examination pertained to the petitioner not having intimated the respondent-RPSC two days prior to the date of the examination, regarding the details of his scribe. In this regard, it is reiterated that Annexure-5 i.e. Special Instructions Regarding the Engagement of a Scribe, categorically provides that only those candidates, who wished to engage a scribe provided by the respondent-RPSC, needed to effectuate said compliance of informing the respondent-RPSC two days prior to the date of the examination. Accordingly, as the petitioner did not seek the aid of the respondent-RPSC in opting for the aid of a scribe and rather, arranged his own, the said requirement qua prior intimation was inapplicable qua the petitioner. For further clarity, it is also mentioned that the petitioner, since the very beginning i.e. while filling the Online Application Form (Annexure-2), had made it abundantly clear that he shall be bringing his own scribe to the concerned examination. Therefore, the primary ground of rejection and the corresponding argument adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC, cannot be countenanced. (b) The secondary ground adopted by the respondent-RPSC for precluding the petitioner from appearing in the concerned examination pertained to the petitioner not carrying along with him his medical certificate showcasing his disability, at the examination centre. In this regard, it is noted that the very admit card, issued by the respondent-RPSC itself i.e. Annexure-4, categorically reflected that the petitioner was to appear in the examination in the Blind Category. The said admit card was also in possession of the petitioner at the examination centre, when the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the examination. In this regard, it is noted that the very admit card, issued by the respondent-RPSC itself i.e. Annexure-4, categorically reflected that the petitioner was to appear in the examination in the Blind Category. The said admit card was also in possession of the petitioner at the examination centre, when the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the examination. Moreover, at the same time, reliance is also placed upon Annexure-4 i.e. Guidelines/Notice for the Examination, issued by the respondent-RPSC itself, which strictly prohibited the petitioner from carrying any items/documents with him for the examination, except for those provided in the said guidelines/notice i.e. E-Admit Card, photograph of the candidate measuring 2.5cm x 2.5cm, ID card and a blue ball pen. Therefore, the secondary ground of rejection, assuming the petitioner to carry the medical certificate as well as the corresponding argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC cannot be countenanced, especially in light of the contrary guidelines issued in connection therewith, by way of which only a handful items were allowed to be carried in the examination centre by the candidates. (c) The tertiary ground adopted by the respondent-RPSC for precluding the petitioner from appearing in the concerned examination pertained to the petitioner arriving at the examination centre late i.e. 09:45 AM, thereby leaving very little time for the respondent-RPSC to conduct necessary inquiry regarding the petitioner’s scribe. In this regard, upon a perusal of the record, it is noted that the petitioner had arrived at the concerned examination centre at 09:00 AM, in compliance of the directions incorporated in the admit card i.e. Annexure-4. However, the delay so caused, by way of which the petitioner reached the examination hall at 09:45AM stemmed from procedural, administrative and infrastructural hurdles created by the respondent-RPSC/examination staff at the gate/premises. Hence, said delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner, especially when the petitioner bonafidely reached the examination centre at 9:00AM. Irrespective of the aforesaid, the argument adopted by learned counsel for the respondent that on account of the petitioner reaching the examination hall merely 15 minutes before the commencement time of the paper is fallacious, as procedural tasks such as document verification are to be undertaken pursuant to the written examination and not at the said stage of examination. Therefore, the tertiary ground of rejection and the corresponding arguments advanced in support thereof, cannot be countenanced as well. Therefore, the tertiary ground of rejection and the corresponding arguments advanced in support thereof, cannot be countenanced as well. (d) That the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC regarding the decision taken qua debarring the petitioner from appearing in the examination being of a special committee, cannot be countenanced as nothing has been brought on record, including the minutes of the meeting, to even simply draw before the Court the considerations adopted by the respondent-RPSC in arriving at their impugned decision. 10. Even otherwise, it is noted that in the Year 2007, India ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter, Convention). The Convention laid down certain principles to be followed by the signatory States for empowerment of persons with disabilities. It required signatory States to make appropriate changes in law as well as in policy to give effect to the principles of the Convention. Correspondingly, the Act of 2016 was promulgated with the basic aim/object of respecting the difference and accepting the persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity, whilst bestowing upon them the equality of opportunity. 11. In furtherance of the aforesaid, it is noted that a cumulative reading of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act of 2016 bestows upon the State the responsibility to not discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to public employment. Accordingly, the duty to conduct/administer examinations for recruitment on such government posts of employment, without creating undue hindrances/obstacles for persons with disabilities, must be read into the over-encompassing and statutory responsibility to not discriminate in matters of public employment. The discernible interrelation between public employment and hassle free administration of examinations for such public employment must be honored at every step of the way by the State instrumentalities, for without equal opportunity of policy enabling hassle free examinations for persons with disabilities, the larger aim and object of ensuring non-discrimination in public employment, which is mere consequence of the said examinations, would not be achieved. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, despite affording due recognition to horizontal reservation, the respondent-RPSC created unsolicited and gratuitous hurdles for the petitioner, contrary to the very policy/circulars/advertisement administering the examinations, thereby precluding the petitioner to appear in the examination and thereby, subjecting him to discrimination as against the other candidates. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, despite affording due recognition to horizontal reservation, the respondent-RPSC created unsolicited and gratuitous hurdles for the petitioner, contrary to the very policy/circulars/advertisement administering the examinations, thereby precluding the petitioner to appear in the examination and thereby, subjecting him to discrimination as against the other candidates. As a result, the impugned actions of the respondent-RPSC purloined off the protection granted to the petitioner for enjoying equal opportunity in matters of public employment. 13. Therefore, upon a cumulative consideration of the observations made herein-above and while taking note of the fact that despite the provisions of the Act of 2016 being duly applicable on the respondent-State and RPSC, for administering examinations for public employment, the respondent-RPSC acted in contravention of its own guidelines/circulars/advertisement to cause prejudice to the protected rights of the petitioner whilst also contravening the circulars issued by the Central Government i.e. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as well as the State Government i.e. Social Justice and Empowerment Department on 29.08.2018 and 25.01.2018 respectively, causing agony to the petitioner and frustrating his rights protected under the Act of 2016. Accordingly, this Court in pursuance of the powers prescribed under Section 89 of the Act of 2016 as well as its inherent powers under Article 226, deems it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 5 lacs, in terms of Prayer Nos.3 and 4 on the respondent-RPSC, payable to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. Whereas, qua prayers nos.1 and 2, it is noted that the same have been rendered infructuous on account of the selection process having attained finality, due to the efflux of time. 14. In congruence with the observations made above, this Court deems it apposite to note that persons with disabilities, as a matter of right and not obligation, are empowered with respect for their inherent dignity and individual autonomy, including their freedom to make choices independent of the systemic prejudice they might face at the hands of the State machinery and/or society. Therefore, the State as well as the public at large, must expeditiously work in order to make the society adept for the needs of persons with disabilities, thereby innately providing them with equality of opportunity, sans tussle and prejudice. 15. As a result, in terms of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. Therefore, the State as well as the public at large, must expeditiously work in order to make the society adept for the needs of persons with disabilities, thereby innately providing them with equality of opportunity, sans tussle and prejudice. 15. As a result, in terms of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 16. List for compliance on 15.03.2024.