JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Quintessential facts necessary for determination of the controversy involved in the present case are that the appellant, who suffers from 100% visual impairment, desirous of taking up a noble job of teaching, applied for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit), pursuant to advertisement dated 12.01.2015. He, however, found that out of 67 posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit), which were advertised, there was no reservation provided for a candidate belonging to disabled category of blind persons and two posts, which were reserved, were ear-marked only for the disabled persons of locomotor disability. The appellant, therefore, lodged his protest by submitting a representation before the authorities. Despite the appellant raising an objection to the manner in which the reservation was made, there being no provision for reservation for a blind person, appellant ultimately filed a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, held that as two candidates who were earlier appointed in reserved category belonged to category of blind persons, the rule of reservation and rotation of roster required that the reservation should now be provided to other category i.e. locomotor category. On this fundamental premise, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has not correctly interpreted the rule of rotation of roster as envisaged in the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2011’). He would further submit that even on factual premise, the order of the learned Single Judge is flawed as the candidates, who were earlier recruited in the reserved category, could not be said to be those belonging to reserved category of blind persons, in view of the contents of various communications and letters, which have been placed on record. He would further submit that even on factual premise, the order of the learned Single Judge is flawed as the candidates, who were earlier recruited in the reserved category, could not be said to be those belonging to reserved category of blind persons, in view of the contents of various communications and letters, which have been placed on record. Since the posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit) is not identified for being filled up from amongst disabled category of hearing impairment, the reservation is required to be provided in just and fair manner giving equal representation to remaining two categories of blind and locomotor in the matter of reservation. His further submission is that roster rotation as provided in Rule 37 of Rule of 2011 has to be operated, keeping in view the preference stated in Rule 36 of the Rule of 2011 wherein the category of blind persons has been kept at the top of three categories. Therefore, it is contended that in the matter of operation of the roster of 100 points, the first and third vacancy are required to be reserved for blind category. 4. In the alternative, it is argued that even if it is assumed that reservation of two posts for disabled category was ear-marked only for disabled persons belong to locomotor disability, in any case, only one post was filled up and the other could not be filled up as the candidates of locomotor disability category was not available. Therefore, the other post was required to be filled up by providing reservation for the candidate belonging to blind category. In his submission, such interpretation would be in line with the statutory mandate by providing 3% reservation under the provisions of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1995’), which was in force at the time of issuance of the advertisement. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, referring to the material available on record, particularly the affidavits, which have been filed by the respondents-State from time to time including an affidavit filed on 21.03.2024, would submit that during the period the earlier Act of 1995 was in force and in operation, when an advertisement was issued on 31.05.2001, out of 32 posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit), one post was reserved for locomotor disability category candidates. However, one Kaushal Kishore Gothwal belonging to disabled category of blind person filed writ petition before this Court and by an interim order, one post was directed to be kept vacant. Later on, the writ petition was allowed and Kaushal Kishore Gothwal was appointed as disabled category candidate. Thereafter, another advertisement was issued on 22.06.2006 wherein 18 posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit) were advertised and one post was reserved for blind candidate, which was filed up by giving appointment to kone Kuldeep Kumar Sahgal, who was a blind person. Thereafter, when next advertisement was issued on 21.09.2010, no post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was advertised. Again, when the advertisement in question was issued on 12.01.2015, initially 64 posts were advertised and thereafter by way of corrigendum, three more posts were added. He would submit that applying 100 points roster, it was found that earlier two posts were already filled up by the candidates belonging to disabled category of blind persons. Therefore, both the posts were ear-marked for candidates belonging to locomotor disability (one post for B.L.A. category and one for O.L. category). His further submission is that the rotation of roster has to be applied in just and fair manner so as to give equal opportunity to disabled category candidates of different nature of disability. As there was no reservation for the candidates belonging to hearing impairment, the reservation roster was to be operated in an alternative manner. As earlier, two posts were filled up by the candidates belonging to blind category, two posts under advertisement dated 12.01.2015 were ear-marked for disabled category of locomotor disability. Therefore, there is no illegality. He would further submit that even if it is assumed that since one post of locomotor disability could not be filed up for want of suitable candidate, the post was required to be filled up only in the manner prescribed under Rule 37(5) of the Rules of 2011, which requires vacant post to be carried forward. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that appellant is a candidate belonging to disabled category of blind. It is not in dispute that he is suffering from 100% vision impairment. 8. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that appellant is a candidate belonging to disabled category of blind. It is not in dispute that he is suffering from 100% vision impairment. 8. In order to provide equal opportunity, protection of rights as also ensuring full participation of persons suffering with disability, the legislature enacted the Act of 1995. Reference of the aforesaid Act is being made because the advertisement in the present case was issued on 21.01.2015, on which date, the Act of 1995 and the Rules made thereunder were in force. The aforesaid Act was subsequently repealed by another Act known as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2016’), but the same would not have any application in the present case. 9. Section 33 of the Act of 1995 provides for reservation in the following manner: “33. Reservation of posts .- Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons suffering from- (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” 10. In order to give effect to the provisions of law, the rule-making authority initially framed Rules known as the Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2000, which were substituted by the Rules of 2011. 11. On the date of issuance of the advertisement in the present case, the Rules of 2011 were in force. The aforesaid facts are not being disputed by any of the parties. 12. The factual background of the case reveals that when earlier advertisement was issued on 31.05.2001, out of 32 posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit), one post was reserved for locomotor category of disabled persons. That, however, was put to challenge by candidate (Kaushal Kishore Gothwal) belonging to disability of blindness, by filing a writ petition. 12. The factual background of the case reveals that when earlier advertisement was issued on 31.05.2001, out of 32 posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit), one post was reserved for locomotor category of disabled persons. That, however, was put to challenge by candidate (Kaushal Kishore Gothwal) belonging to disability of blindness, by filing a writ petition. The record shows that initially there was an interim order passed in that case and later on that petition itself was allowed by the Court vide order dated 13.09.2002. In compliance of the directions passed by this Court, the said petitioner Kaushal Kishore Gothwal, who belonged to blind category, was given appointment. Since only one post was reserved for locomotor under the advertisement dated 31.05.2001, it is clear that in that recruitment process, one candidate of blind category was given benefit of reservation. 13. In the next selection process, which was initiated vide advertisement dated 22.06.2006, as many as 18 posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit) were advertised and one post was reserved for blind category. Against that post, one Kuldeep Kumar Sahgal, belonging to blind category, was granted appointment. 14. Though learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to various materials and lists, would submit that two candidates namely Kaushal Kishore Gothwal and Kuldeep Kumar Sahgal, could not be said to be appointed against reserved category of blind persons, in view of abundance of materials, which have been placed before us, particularly, in the latest affidavit, which has been filed by the respondents, there is no iota of doubt that Kaushal Kishore Gothwal and Kuldeep Kumar Sahgal, both were appointed by giving benefit of reservation for blind category candidates. 15. It is also a fact stated before this Court on affidavit by respondents that when another advertisement was issued on 21.09.2010, no post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was advertised. 16. At the time when selection process was again initiated by issuing another advertisement on 12.01.2015, in the present case, the position obtaining on record was that earlier two candidates of blind disability category were provided benefit of reservation. It was for this reason that the respondents decided to provide reservation of two posts, in the disabled category, to the candidates of locomotor disability. The question which arises for consideration is whether this was in accordance with law or not. 17. It was for this reason that the respondents decided to provide reservation of two posts, in the disabled category, to the candidates of locomotor disability. The question which arises for consideration is whether this was in accordance with law or not. 17. The Rules of 2011 which were in force on the date when the advertisement was issued on 12.01.2015, provide for the manner in which the reservations have to be rotated by providing roster. 18. While Rule 36 of the Rules of 2011 provides for reservation of different categories of disabled persons, Rule 37 of the Rules of 2011 provides for maintenance and operation of roster. As these aforesaid rules are relevant for the present case, they are reproduced as below: “36. Reservation for Persons with Disabilities. - In every establishment three percent of the vacancies shall be reserved for persons or class of Persons with Disabilities of which one percent each shall be reserved-for persons suffering from: - (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment; (iii) Locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. In the posts identified for each disability by the Government of India under section 32 and such reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation: 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 38 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. 37. Maintenance of Rosters. - (1) A11 establishments shall maintain separate 100 point reservation roster registers for determining/effecting reservation for the disabled. (2) Each register shall have cycle of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks, comprising the following points: 1st Block - Point No. 1 to point No. 33 2nd Block - Point No. 34 to point No. 66 3rd Block - Point No. 67 to point No. 100 (3) Points 1, 34 and 67 of the roster shall be earmarked and reserved for persons with disabilities-one point for each of the three categories of disabilities. The head of the establishment shall decide the categories of disabilities for which the points 1, 34 and 67 will be reserved keeping in view all relevant facts. (4) All the vacancies shall be entered in the relevant roster register. If the post falling at point no.1 is not identified for the disabled or the head of the establishment considers it desirable not to fill it up by a disabled person or it is not possible to fill up that post by the disabled for any other reason, one of the vacancies falling at any of the points from 2 to 33 shall be treated as reserved for the disabled and filled as such. Likewise a vacancy falling at any of the points from 34 to 66 or from 67 to 100 shall be filled by the disabled. The purpose of keeping points 1, 34 and 67 as reserved is to fill up the first available suitable vacancy from 1 to 33, first available suitable vacancy from 34 to 66 and first available suitable vacancy from 67 to 100 by persons with disabilities. (5) There is a possibility that none of the vacancies from 1 to 33 is suitable for any category of the disabled. In that case two vacancies from 34 to 66 shall be filled as reserved for persons with disabilities. If the vacancies from 34 to 66 are also not suitable for any category, three vacancies shall be filled as reserved from the third block containing points from 67 to 100. This means that if no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block, it shall be carried into the next block. (6) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start. (7) If the number of vacancies in a year is such as to cover only one block or two, discretion as to which category of the disabled should be accommodated first shall vest in the head of the establishment, who shall decide on the basis of the nature of the post, the level of representation of the specific disabled category in the concerned grade/post etc. 19. Rule 36 of the Rules of 2011 clearly provides that for the purpose of grant of benefit of reservation, three categories namely blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy have been recognized. 19. Rule 36 of the Rules of 2011 clearly provides that for the purpose of grant of benefit of reservation, three categories namely blindness or low vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy have been recognized. The rule also envisages that the reservation will be dependent upon identification as may be made by the Government. It is not in dispute that as far as the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) is concerned, the post was not identified as open for reservation to disabled persons in the category of hearing impairment. That means, the reservation was to be rotated only as between candidates belonging to blind category and locomotor disability category. 20. The roster point as has been enacted in Rule 37(2) of the Rules of 2011 also clarifies that every register shall have cycle of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into three blocks as mentioned therein. 21. On a rational, fair and logical interpretation of the aforesaid Rule, we find that the three blocks out of 100 points in a cycle are intended to be operated in the manner that it gives a fair and equal opportunity, by way of rotation to candidates belonging to three different categories of blind, hearing impairment and locomotor disability. The postulate of the Rule signifies that even while granting reservation to the persons with disability, the principle of equality of opportunity to each of the category has also to be maintained. However, in the present case, the three blocks as has been stated in the Rule have to be operated in a manner which ensures equality of opportunity in the matter of reservation to the category of disabled candidates, who belong to the blind category as also to those who belong to locomotor disability because the post is not identified for reservation benefits to persons belonging to hearing impairment. 22. The three categories which have been mentioned in Rule 36, in our view, do not lay down any Rule of preference. Mere mentioning of the category of blind as the first category, cannot be taken as a Rule of preference. It only identifies the three categories and the order in which these categories appear in the Rule is not significant. The three categories which have been mentioned in Rule 36, in our view, do not lay down any Rule of preference. Mere mentioning of the category of blind as the first category, cannot be taken as a Rule of preference. It only identifies the three categories and the order in which these categories appear in the Rule is not significant. If the Rule is taken as signifying priority or preference of one category over the other, the very purpose of maintaining equality of opportunity amongst various categories, may be jeopardized and that would frustrate the object of the enactment as also go against the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in Rule 37 of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, on this count, we are not prepared to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 23. However, in the present case, as only two categories are available for being provided reservation, can it be said that one block has to be kept vacant without being provided any reservation. The answer, in our opinion, is ‘no’. This is for the reason that the statutory mandate is that 3% posts have to be reserved for candidates belonging to reserved category. This statutory object could be achieved only when all the blocks are operated irrespective of whether all the three categories of disability are identified for reservation or not. In the present case, as there are only two categories for which the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) has been identified, in our view, the mandate of law and fairness as also the equality of opportunity could be ensured if the blocks are operated by giving benefit to the candidates belonging to the blind and locomotor disability category. For illustration if the first block is reserved for candidates belonging to blind category, the second block of 34 to 66 would go to candidates belonging to locomotor disability. The third block will be reserved for candidates belonging to blind category. However, when the next block of 100 starts, the Rule of alternative reservation will have to be followed. This would mean that if in the first 100 points roster, one post in the first block has been reserved for blind, than in that case, the second block had to start with reservation for locomotor disability. This is for the reason that the three blocks are not even but odd. This would mean that if in the first 100 points roster, one post in the first block has been reserved for blind, than in that case, the second block had to start with reservation for locomotor disability. This is for the reason that the three blocks are not even but odd. Any other rule will lead to a situation where the candidates belonging to either of the two categories get more reservation than the other which will defeat the object of maintaining equality of opportunity ensuring equal opportunity as amongst two groups of disability category. Having so determined, the principle behind rotation of roster as envisaged under Rule 37 of the Rules, if applied to the facts of the present case, we find that in earlier two recruitments, the first post was reserved for locomotor, second was reserved for blind category. However, due to judicial intervention, first post was given to the candidate belonging to blind category and the second also went to blind category, the next two posts were required to be reserved for candidates belonging to locomotor category. That is what has been done by the respondents. Therefore, in our view, the reservation of two posts for locomotor category in the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 12.01.2015, does not militate against the scheme of reservation and the operation of roster as provided under the Rules of 2011. 24. However, the alternative submission made by learned counsel for the appellant has considerable force. It is not in dispute that though two posts were reserved for candidates belonging to locomotor category, only one post was filled up and the other candidate of locomotor disability was not available. This is clear from the results annexed with the affidavit filed by the petitioner. On this aspect, there is no dispute raised by the respondents. Therefore, in such circumstances, when out of two posts reserved for disability category of locomotor, one remains unfilled then question arises how that post is required to be filled up. 25. The answer lies in provisions contained in Rule 37(5) of the Rules of 2011. The provisions contained in sub-Rule (5) provide that where none of the vacancies from 1 to 33 is suitable for any category of disability, in that case, two vacancies from 34 to 36 shall be filled as reserved for persons with disabilities. 25. The answer lies in provisions contained in Rule 37(5) of the Rules of 2011. The provisions contained in sub-Rule (5) provide that where none of the vacancies from 1 to 33 is suitable for any category of disability, in that case, two vacancies from 34 to 36 shall be filled as reserved for persons with disabilities. If vacancies from 34 to 66 are also not available for any category then three vacancies shall be filled up as reserved from the third block containing points from 67 to 100. If no vacancy can be reserved in a particular block then the eventuality is met with the Rule that it shall be carried forward in the next block. 26. The aforesaid provision does not mean that the vacancy is to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. The Rule mandates that rotation carried forward has to be from one block to the other block. This obviously is meant to advance the objective of reservation by ensuring that if a candidate of one particular disability category is not available, it could be filled up from amongst candidates of another disability category. 27. The operation of Rule in the aforesaid manner would definitely allow a candidate of one reserved category to seek benefit of reservation if even though his turn in his respective block has not come, if the candidate of reserved category for that block is not available. As a consequence, if a candidate belonging to locomotor category is not available, the post cannot be kept vacant but it should be given to the disabled candidate of the next category. If we operate the Rule in this manner, it is clear that the candidate belonging to locomotor category was not available, it goes to candidate belonging to blind category i.e. the appellant herein. 28. Therefore, in view of above consideration, we are of the view that though two posts were rightly reserved for locomotor category, in the event of one post having remained unfilled, mandate of Rule 37(5) of the Rules of 2011, required the respondents to provide reservation to candidates belonging to blind category. It is undisputed that in that event, the appellant would have emerged as candidate for empanellment in the list of reserved category for appointment. 29. It is undisputed that in that event, the appellant would have emerged as candidate for empanellment in the list of reserved category for appointment. 29. Learned counsel for the respondents also discloses to the Court that in the last recruitment which was initiated in the year 2020, the appellant has otherwise been selected as a candidate belonging to reserved category. 30. In view of above consideration, we are of the view that denial of appointment to the appellant pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 was illegal and contravention of Rules relating to reservation. Therefore, he is entitled to be appointed under that very advertisement and against the vacancy which has been kept vacant under the impugned order passed by the Court. We direct the respondent-State to forthwith issue order of appointment in favour of the appellant. We must make it clear that the appellant will be entitled to consequential benefits of appointment from due date on which he would have been granted but for denial by the respondents. In other words, he would be entitled to appointment from the same date the other candidate of locomotor category has been appointed under the advertisement dated 12.01.2015. 31. Normally while granting such benefit of appointment with consequential benefits from earlier date, this Court does not grant any actual benefit of pay or perks. However, in the present case, this case poses a special circumstance. The appellant was a candidate belonging to disability category and is suffering from 100% vision impairment. Therefore, keeping that in view, we are inclined to direct that actual benefits shall also be extended to the appellant and all other consequential benefits flowing therefrom should also be extended to him. The order of this Court insofar as issuance of appointment order is concerned, should be complied forthwith by issuing appointment order within a period of 45 days. For other consequential benefits, necessary exercise will be required to be undertaken and brought to its logical end within next three months. 32. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.