JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), the 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.32605 of 2023, has filed this writ appeal invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2024 in that writ petition. The said writ petition was one filed by the 1 st respondent herein-petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3 rd respondent Secretary to Government, Social Justice Department to identify and earmark posts under Section 34 (c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 , as stipulated under Sections 32 and 33 of the said Act, and the relevant orders in this regard, in Ext.P4 ranked list published by KPSC, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; a writ of mandamus commanding the 4 th respondent Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department to identify and earmark the posts under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act and to report the identified vacancies, with retrospective effect from the date on which Ext.P4 ranked list published by KPSC came into force, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding KPSC to advice the petitioner for appointment against the first vacancy identified and earmarked for persons with locomotor disability, as stipulated under Section 34 (c) of the Act in the event of respondents 3 and 4 complying with the directions contained in the 1 st and 2 nd reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner, who is a person with benchmark disability, is included in the supplementary list for Ezhava/Thiyya/Billava category for appointment to the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, published by KPSC. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a true copy of the Standing Disability Assessment Board Certificate dated 18.12.2012 issued from the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Vatakara, in which the percentage of disability of the petitioner is certified as 40%. Ext.P2 is the Degree Certificate dated 08.06.2022 issued to the petitioner by the University of Calicut, in the faculty of Humanities. Ext.P3 is a copy of the notification dated 16.06.2021 issued by KPSC for appointment to the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in various Universities in Kerala. Ext.P2 is the Degree Certificate dated 08.06.2022 issued to the petitioner by the University of Calicut, in the faculty of Humanities. Ext.P3 is a copy of the notification dated 16.06.2021 issued by KPSC for appointment to the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in various Universities in Kerala. Ext.P4 is a copy of the ranked list published by KPSC pursuant to Ext.P3 notification, in which the petitioner is included in the supplementary list for Ezhava/Thiyya/Billava category, at Rank No.11. According to the petitioner, a separate list for differently abled candidates under 3% reservation is provided under Sections 32 , 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act. Ext.P5 is a copy of the appointment chart prepared by KPSC in respect of Ext.P4 ranked list, with the date of advice as 22.07.2023. Ext.P6 is a copy of G.O.(P)No.12/2019/SJD dated 31.10.2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent, on behalf of the 2 nd respondent State, whereby the turn of persons with benchmark disabilities was revised in the light of enhancing the percentage of reservation from 3% to 4%. Accordingly, the earlier turns of reservation on the 100-point roster at 1, 34 and 67 were revised as 1, 26, 51 and 76. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to be considered under any of the reservation turns for locomotor disability/cerebral palsy under Section 35(c) of the Act, against the already advised 117 candidates for the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala. 3. Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2023, a copy of G.O.(Rt.)No.39/2024/SJD dated 14.02.2024 was placed on record along with a memo dated 27.02.2024 filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, whereby the 2 nd respondent State identified the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala for differently abled persons, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. 4. In the writ petition, the 2 nd respondent KPSC filed a counter affidavit dated 17.06.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that reservation in any post can be given to a differently abled candidate only after the identification of the post by the State Government. Based on the orders of the State Government identifying such posts, the notification issued by KPSC shall include a clause regarding reservation for differently abled candidates. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that reservation in any post can be given to a differently abled candidate only after the identification of the post by the State Government. Based on the orders of the State Government identifying such posts, the notification issued by KPSC shall include a clause regarding reservation for differently abled candidates. Thus, KPSC can publish a probability/short list by including the reservation list of differently abled candidates only as per the Government order identifying posts for reservation to such candidates. 5. The counter affidavit dated 17.06.2024 filed by the 2 nd respondent KPSC was followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 13.12.2024. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2023, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P7 Government order, i.e., G.O.(P)No.37/ 2020/HEDN dated 06.11.2020, whereby the process of recruitment to the post of non-teaching staff in various Universities in the State was entrusted to KPSC. The document marked as Ext.P8 is a communication dated 20.11.2022 of the 4 th respondent Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, whereby the Registrars of the Universities in the State were informed that the post of Library Assistant in the Universities is re-designated as Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library). 6. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2024, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P9 Government order, i.e., G.O.(P)No.5/2023/SJD dated 01.10.2023, whereby revised norms for reservation to differently abled candidates were formulated, and Ext.P10 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Rt.)No.39/2024/SJD dated 14.02.2024, whereby the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in various Universities in the State was identified and reserved in accordance with Sections 33 (ii) and 34 of the 2016 Act. 7. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 29.07.2024 to the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent KPSC, producing therewith Ext.P11 Government order, i.e., G.O.(P)No. 28/98/P&ARD dated 14.07.1998 issued by the State identifying the post of Librarians in public services for appointment from differently abled candidates, and Ext.P12 Government order, i.e., G.O.(P)No.19/2020/SJD dated 25.08.2020 identifying the posts of Librarian Gr.IV and Library Assistant for the appointment of differently abled candidates. Along with that reply affidavit, the petitioner has also placed on record Ext.P13 judgment of the Apex Court in Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] 8. Along with that reply affidavit, the petitioner has also placed on record Ext.P13 judgment of the Apex Court in Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] 8. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2024, and KPSC was directed to advice the petitioner for appointment against one vacancy identified for locomotor disability, as specified in Section 34 (c) of the Act, within one month. Paragraphs 12 to 16 and also the last paragraph of the judgment read thus; “12. Ext.P3 is the notification of the 2 nd respondent for recruitment to the post of Professional Assistant Grade-II (Library). The Note (ii) under Clause 4 of the notification provides that recruitment should be in accordance with the ranks secured by the candidates, subject to the rules of reservation and rotation in force. Ext.P4 Rank list would show that the petitioner is ranked at 11 in the Supplementary Rank list for Ezhava/Thiyya/Billava. It is an admitted position that since the post of Professional Assistant Grade-II (Library) was not identified to be suitable for the recruitment of PwD, so far no appointments are made following the reservation provided under the Act, 2016. 13. Standing Counsel representing the 2 nd respondent would submit that the post was identified as suitable for reservation under the Act, 2016 as per the Government Order 14.02.2024 of the Secretary to Government of Kerala, Social Justice Department. Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent would submit that as the identification of the post came subsequently, no reservation can be applied and extended to the petitioner. When the notification was published, the post was not identified for the recruitment of persons with disabilities. 14. The question whether non-identification of post by the Government can adversely affect the chances of persons with disabilities was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India through Secretary and another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another [ 2010 (7) SCC 626 ]. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that PwDs cannot be appointed unless posts are identified under Section 32 , but the provision for reservation under Section 33 became effective immediately when the Act came into force in the year 1996. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that PwDs cannot be appointed unless posts are identified under Section 32 , but the provision for reservation under Section 33 became effective immediately when the Act came into force in the year 1996. The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to the categories of disabled persons indicated therein. Therefore, delay in identification of posts for grant of reservation under Section 33 of the Act, 2016, cannot in any manner adversely affect the candidates with physical disabilities. 15. It is not disputed that pursuant to Ext.P3 notification and P4 Rank list, 159 candidates have been so far advised by the Public Service Commission. If that be so, at least six vacancies should be available to the physically disabled candidates and one of such vacancies should be earmarked for the persons with Locomotor Disability. 16. In the afore facts of the case, I do not find any justification to deny the benefit of reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 , to the petitioner as the rank list is still current. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The 2 nd respondent is directed to advice the petitioner for appointment against one vacancy identified for Locomotor Disability category stipulated in Section 34 (c) of the Act, 2016. Necessary advice shall be given within a period of one month.” 9. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this writ appeal filed by KPSC, the 2 nd respondent in the writ petition. 10. On 30.01.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the matter was admitted on file. The 1 st respondent- petitioner entered appearance through counsel and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 25.03.2022 in W.A.No.223 of 2022. On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC submitted that the 1 st respondent- petitioner is included in the supplementary list for Ezhava candidates with Rank No.11. Ext.P3 notification dated 16.06.2021 is a general notification, which does not provide reservation for differently abled candidates. On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC submitted that the 1 st respondent- petitioner is included in the supplementary list for Ezhava candidates with Rank No.11. Ext.P3 notification dated 16.06.2021 is a general notification, which does not provide reservation for differently abled candidates. By the order dated 30.01.2025, this Court granted an interim stay of the operation of the judgment dated 18.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge. 11. By the order dated 17.06.2025, Registry was directed to list this writ appeal on 20.06.2025, along with the Judges’ papers in W.A.No.362 of 2015 and connected matters. On 25.06.2025, the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC has filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking an order to produce Annexures 2 to 4 as additional documents. On 30.06.2025, the 1 st respondent- petitioner filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.2 of 2025, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(e) documents. 12. We have perused the Judges’ papers in W.A.No.362 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011, W.A.No.403 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.661 of 2014, W.A.No.550 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.3584 of 2014 and also W.A.No.628 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.2715 of 2014 - Kerala Public Service Commission v. E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] . The learned counsel on both sides were permitted to peruse the Judge’s papers in W.A.No.362 of 2015 and connected matters. 13. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC for the appellant-2 nd respondent, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4-respondents 1, 3 and 4. 14. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would contend that the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala was identified for appointment of differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities pursuant to the directions contained in the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2023 in the writ petition. Based on that order, the Government issued Ext.P10 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Rt.) No.39/2024/SJD dated 14.02.2024, identifying 4% differently abled categories as suitable for the selection of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala. Based on that order, the Government issued Ext.P10 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Rt.) No.39/2024/SJD dated 14.02.2024, identifying 4% differently abled categories as suitable for the selection of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala. Since the post was not identified before the publication of Ext.P3 notification dated 16.06.2021, the Commission has ordered to implement 4% reservation for differently abled candidates, as per the Government order dated 14.02.2024, from the next selection onwards. Circular No.02/2021 issued by the Commission provides that (i) in case of current selections, if a particular post is a newly identified as suitable for differently abled reservation from 14.08.2020 onwards, reservation need not be implemented in current selection, but only for subsequent notifications; (ii) for posts those are identified for differently abled reservation up to 13.08.2020 and vacancies reported thereafter, differently abled reservation shall be implemented as per G.O.(Ms.)No.29/ 2011/SWD dated 07.05.2011 and the circulars issued by the Commission. 14.1. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC, after referring to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2025 and the additional documents marked as Annexures A2 to A4 would point out that in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] on identification of the post as one suitable for differently abled candidates, KPSC published a separate ranked list for such candidates and advice was made from that list. In the case at hand, there is no separate ranked list for differently abled candidates and the 1 st respondent-petitioner, who is a candidate included in the supplementary list of candidates under the LDCP category, claims appointment to the quota of differently abled candidates. The learned Standing Counsel would point out that, by Annexure A2 Government order dated 14.08.2020, it was ordered that if, after the publication of the ranked list, the post has been identified for differently abled candidates, the reservation needs to be made applicable only from the next ranked list. Based on Annexure A2 Government order, KPSC issued Annexure A3 circular dated 18.02.2021, wherein it is provided that if the identification of the post is after the notification, the reservation for differently abled candidates needs to be made only in future selections and it need not be implemented in the present selection. Based on Annexure A2 Government order, KPSC issued Annexure A3 circular dated 18.02.2021, wherein it is provided that if the identification of the post is after the notification, the reservation for differently abled candidates needs to be made only in future selections and it need not be implemented in the present selection. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] and that of this Court in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , KPSC addressed the Government seeking a review of Annexure A2 order. However, the Government, vide Annexure A4 letter dated 12.03.2025, informed KPSC that the Government, after examining the matter, decided not to review Annexure A2 order dated 14.08.2020. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge, without adverting to the relevant facts and the law on the point, held that non-identification of the posts by the Government shall not affect differently abled candidates, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] In the said judgment of the Apex Court, what is provided is that differently abled candidates cannot be appointed unless the posts are identified under Section 32 of the Act. In the case at hand, the issue is whether a separate list can be prepared by the Commission, since the notification does not stipulate reservation, and whether, without preparing a separate ranked list, a differently abled candidate included in the ranked list can be appointed. The same issue is pending consideration before this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.521 of 2024 and O.P.(KAT)No.516 of 2024, in which the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal is under challenge. Those original petitions have already been admitted, and Annexure A1 interim order dated 06.12.2024 has been granted in O.P.(KAT)No.521 of 2024. 15. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-petitioner would contend that the stand taken by KPSC that after identification of the post as one suitable for appointment of differently abled candidates there is no necessity for filling up the vacancies, which could be done only in the next notification is against the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] . KPSC has already implemented the judgment dated 25.03.2022 of the Division Bench in W.A.No.223 of 2022 - Kerala Public Service Commission v. George Mathew [2022:KER:15867] - as evident from Annexure R1(a) letter dated 07.07.2022. As held by the Division Bench in the said decision (para 14), for filling up backlog vacancies, the pending ranked list can be utilised appropriately against the vacancies reported. Hence, KPSC is bound to utilise the pending ranked list. The backlog vacancies shall be treated as current vacancies as held by the Division Bench in the said decision (para 13). In the case at hand, as per the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 159 vacancies were reported. Hence, the 1 st respondent-petitioner, who has locomotor disability, is entitled to get advice against one vacancy reserved for differently abled candidates. The stand taken by the Government in Annexure A2 order dated 14.08.2020 and Annexure A4 clarification dated 12.03.2025 are in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2013) 10 SCC 772] and Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind [ (2013) 10 SCC 772 ] and also the law laid down by this Court in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] and Kerala Public Service Commission v. George Mathew - judgment dated 25.03.2022 in W.A.No.223 of 2022. Annexure A2 order and Annexure A4 clarification were issued without noticing the statutory mandate of the provisions contained in the Act. 16. The learned Senior Government Pleader would support the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that as per Annexure A2 Government order dated 14.08.2020 and Annexure A4 clarification dated 12.03.2025, when the post is identified only after publication of the ranked list, the reservation for differently abled candidates need not be implemented in the present selection process. 17. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, ‘the 1995 Act’) was enacted by Parliament to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. 17. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, ‘the 1995 Act’) was enacted by Parliament to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. Parliament, realising the national need for the rights of persons with disabilities and commitment to the Convention of the United Nations General Assembly, repealed the 1995 Act and brought in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for brevity ‘the 2016 Act’), which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 18. In Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India [ (2017) 14 SCC 1 ] , the Apex Court noticed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 visualises a sea change and conceives of actualisation of the benefits engrafted under the said Act. The whole grammar of benefit has been changed for the better, and the responsibilities of many have been encompassed. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the Act and see that the same are implemented. The laudable policy inherent within the framework of the legislation should be implemented and not become a distant dream. The immediacy of action is the warrant. After referring to certain provisions of the 2016 Act, to highlight the salient features of the Act, the Apex Court observed that more rights have been conferred on disabled persons and more categories have been added. That apart, access to justice, free education, role of local authorities, National fund and State fund for differently abled persons have been created. The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea change in the perception and requires a march forward look with regard to differently abled persons and the role of the States, local authorities, educational institutions and companies. The statute operates on a broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the rights of differently abled persons and provides punishment for their violation. 18.1. The statute operates on a broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the rights of differently abled persons and provides punishment for their violation. 18.1. In Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation [(2017) 14 SCC 1] , having regard to the change in core aspects, the Apex Court deem it apposite to direct all the States and the Union Territories to file compliance reports keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act within twelve weeks. In the said order, the Apex Court observed that the States and the Union Territories must realise that under the 2016 Act, their responsibilities have grown and they are required to actualise the purpose of the Act, for there is an accent on many a sphere with regard to the rights of those with disabilities. When the law is so concerned for disabled persons and makes provision, it is the obligation of the law- executing authorities to give effect to the same in quiet promptitude. A duty is cast on the States and its authorities to see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined and applicable to the cooperative societies, companies, firms, associations, establishments and institutions are scrupulously followed. 19. Clause (r) of Section 2 of the 2016 Act defines the term ‘person with benchmark disability’ to mean a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. Chapter VI of the Act deals with special provisions for persons with benchmark disabilities. Section 33 of the Act deals with identification of posts for reservation. As per Section 33 , the appropriate Government shall (i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 ; (ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and (iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years. 20. Section 34 of the 2016 Act, which deals with reservation, reads thus; “34. 20. Section 34 of the 2016 Act, which deals with reservation, reads thus; “34. Reservation.- (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 instructions 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. (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. (3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.” 21. (3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.” 21. Section 32 of the 1995 Act deals with the identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with disabilities. As per Section 32 of the 1995 Act, appropriate Governments shall (a) identify posts in the establishments, which can be reserved for persons with disability; (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and update the list taking into consideration the developments in technology. 22. Section 33 of the 1995 Act, which deals with reservation of posts, reads thus; “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.” 23. In Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] the question which came up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether, on account of the failure of the Government of India to identify posts for persons falling within the ambit of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, the 1 st respondent, a visually handicapped person who suffers from 100% blindness, who had been declared successful in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, should be deprived of the benefit of his selection purportedly on the ground that there were no available vacancies in the said category. The other question, which was connected with the first question, was whether the reservation provided for in Section 33 of the 1995 Act was dependent on the identification of posts suitable for appointment in such categories, as contended on behalf of the Government of India. 23.1. The other question, which was connected with the first question, was whether the reservation provided for in Section 33 of the 1995 Act was dependent on the identification of posts suitable for appointment in such categories, as contended on behalf of the Government of India. 23.1. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the 1 st respondent, a visually challenged person, appeared in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 2006. After clearing the preliminary examination, he appeared for the main examination in October 2006 and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was called for an interview scheduled on 01.05.2007. After the interview, the names of 474 candidates who were selected were released on 14.05.2007. In the said list, the names of the 1 st respondent and another visually challenged candidate were included. The 1 st respondent was at Serial No.5 of the merit list prepared for visually challenged candidates, who were declared successful in the examination. 23.2. According to the 1 st respondent, though there were more than five vacancies available in the visually challenged category, only one post was offered under that category, and he was, therefore, not given an appointment despite the vacancies available. He filed O.A.No.1397 of 2007, an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking appointment under the reservation for the disabled categories, provided for under Section 33 of the 1995 Act, contending that since the said Act came into force in 1996, providing a statutory mandate for reservation of 3% of the posts available for persons suffering from different kinds of disabilities enumerated in Section 33 , such reservation ought to have been in force with effect from the date on which the Act came into force. 23.3. According to the 1st respondent, if the vacancies were to be considered from the year 1996, then instead of one vacancy being declared for the year in question, there should have been at least seven vacancies from the reserved categories of disabilities, which were interchangeable. Having regard to the number of appointments made with regard to the disabled categories reserved under Section 33 of the 1995 Act, since the said Act came into force, there were at least seven posts which could be filled up in the year 2006. Having regard to the number of appointments made with regard to the disabled categories reserved under Section 33 of the 1995 Act, since the said Act came into force, there were at least seven posts which could be filled up in the year 2006. However, in that year, only one post from this category had been filled. Therefore, being at Serial No.5 of the list of successful candidates amongst the physically challenged candidates, there was sufficient number of vacancies in which he could have been appointed and that the authorities had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act upon the faulty reasoning that the vacancies in the reserved posts could not be declared, without first identifying the same for the purposes of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act. 23.4. The case of the 1 st respondent was negated by the Central Administrative Tribunal, by the order dated 07.04.2008. The 1 st respondent moved the Delhi High Court, and the High Court set aside the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and allowed O.A.No.1397 of 2007. The High Court, upon observing that a clear vacancy was available to which the 1 st respondent could have been accommodated, based on his position in the merit list, issued a mandamus to the Government of India to offer him an appointment to one of the reserved posts, by issuing an appointment letter, within six weeks from the date of the order. Certain consequential orders were also passed, together with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the Government of India. 23.5. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , before the Apex Court, it was argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that the Government had been actively involved in complying with the provisions of the 1995 Act. In Groups C and D posts, the Government of India provided reservations for physically challenged persons from the year 1977. To consider the growing demand from visually challenged persons, a meeting for the identification of posts in various Ministries/ Departments was scheduled in the year 1985 and 416 posts were identified in Groups A and B posts. In the year 1986, an office memorandum was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) providing for preference to be given to physically challenged persons for these posts. In the year 1986, an office memorandum was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) providing for preference to be given to physically challenged persons for these posts. In the year 1988, another office memorandum was issued by the Government of India indicating that the identification done in the year 1986 would remain valid till the same is modified. After the 1995 Act came into force, a further office memorandum was issued, whereby reservation of physically challenged persons in identified Group A and Group B posts/services was extended to posts which were to be filled up through direct recruitment. In the year 1999, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment constituted an expert committee to identify/review posts in Categories A, B, C and D, which made recommendations for the identification of posts for visually challenged persons. The report of the expert committee was accepted by the Ministry in the year 2001 and the posts were duly identified for persons with disabilities. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India made it clear that 416 posts, which had been identified in the year 1985, did not include All-India Services and that for the first time in the year 2005, the posts of the Indian Administrative Service were identified in compliance with the provisions of Section 33 of the 1995 Act. Pursuant to such identification, the posts were reserved and filled up. Reservation up to 3% of vacancies in the reserved posts was, accordingly, identified with effect from 2006, and the claim of the 1 st respondent for appointment based on the argument that the reservation should have taken effect from 1996, when the 1995 Act came into force, is liable to be rejected. 23.6. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the Apex Court found that the submission made on behalf of the Government of India regarding the implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment, under Section 32 thereof, runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. To accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the 1995 Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. Such a stand taken by the Government of India before the High Court was rightly rejected. To accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the 1995 Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction. Such a stand taken by the Government of India before the High Court was rightly rejected. Therefore, the Apex Court found that the submission made on behalf of the Government of India that identification of Groups A and B posts in the Indian Administrative Service was undertaken after the year 2005 is not of much substance. 23.7. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the Apex Court found that, as has been pointed out by the High Court, neither Section 32 nor Section 33 of the 1995 Act makes any distinction with regard to Groups A, B, C and D posts. They only speak of identification and reservation of posts for persons with disabilities, though the proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the provisions of the said section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment. No such exemption has been pleaded or brought to the notice of the Court on behalf of the Government of India. It is only logical that, as provided in Section 32 of the 1995 Act, the posts have to be identified for reservation for the purpose of Section 33 , but such identification was meant to be simultaneously undertaken with the coming into operation of the said Act, to give effect to the provisions of Section 33 . The legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. Such a submission strikes at the foundation of the provisions relating to the duty cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in every establishment. 23.8. The legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 of the Act to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. Such a submission strikes at the foundation of the provisions relating to the duty cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in every establishment. 23.8. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the Apex Court found that, while it cannot be denied that unless posts are identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, no appointments from the reserved categories contained therein can be made and that to such extent the provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 of the Act, but the extent of such dependence would be for the purpose of making appointments and not for the purpose of making reservation. In other words, reservation under Section 33 of the Act is not dependent on identification, as urged on behalf of the Government of India, though a duty has been cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in the number of posts reserved for the three categories mentioned in Section 33 of the Act in respect of persons suffering from the disabilities spelt out therein. In fact, a situation has also been noticed, where, on account of the non-availability of candidates, some of the reserved posts could remain vacant in a given year. For meeting such eventualities, provision was made to carry forward such vacancies for two years, after which they would lapse. Therefore, the Apex Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/-. The Government of India was given eight weeks' time from the date of judgment to give effect to the directions of the High Court. 24. In Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind [ (2013) 10 SCC 772 ] the question that came up for consideration before a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was whether the reservation provided for the disabled persons under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is dependent upon the identification of posts as stipulated by Section 32 . The Apex Court noticed that in Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] , the Government of India sought to contend that since they have conducted the exercise of identification of posts in civil services in terms of Section 32 of the Act only in the year 2005, the reservation has to be computed and applied only with reference to the vacancies filled up from the year 2005 onwards and not from the year 1996 when the Act came into force. The Court, after examining the interdependence of Sections 32 and 33, viz. identification of posts and the scheme of reservation, rejected the said contention. In the light of the above pronouncement, it is clear that the scope of identification comes into the picture only at the time of appointment of a person in the post identified for disabled persons and is not necessarily relevant at the time of computing 3% reservation under Section 33 of the Act. In succinct, it was held in Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] that Section 32 of the Act is not a precondition for computation of reservation of 3% under Section 33 of the Act rather Section 32 is the following effect of Section 33 . Apart from the reasoning of the Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] , even a reading of Section 33 , at the outset, establishes vividly the intention of the legislature, viz. reservation of 3% for differently abled persons should have to be computed based on total vacancies in the strength of a cadre and not just based on the vacancies available in the identified posts. There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 33 , and from the construction of the said statutory provision, only one meaning is possible. 24.1. In National Federation of the Blind [(2013) 10 SCC 772] , the Apex Court noticed that a perusal of Section 33 of the Act reveals that this section has been divided into three parts. The first part mandates that every appropriate Government shall appoint a minimum of 3% vacancies in its establishments for persons with disabilities. In this light, the contention of the Union of India that reservation in terms of Section 33 has to be computed against identified posts only is not tenable by any method of interpretation of this part of the section. In this light, the contention of the Union of India that reservation in terms of Section 33 has to be computed against identified posts only is not tenable by any method of interpretation of this part of the section. The second part deals with the distribution of 3% posts in every establishment among 3 categories of disabilities. It starts from the word ‘of which’. The word ‘of which’ has to relate to appointing not less than 3% vacancies in an establishment and, in any way, it does not refer to the identified posts. In fact, the contention of the Government of India was sought to be justified by bringing the last portion of the second part of the section, viz. ‘identified posts’ in this very first part which deals with the statutory obligation imposed upon the appropriate Government to ‘appoint not less than 3% vacancies for the persons or class of persons with disabilities’. The Apex Court was of the considered view that it is not plausible in the light of established rules of interpretation. The minimum level of representation of persons with disabilities has been provided in this very first part, and the second part deals with the distribution of this 3% among the three categories of disabilities. Further, in the last portion of the second part, the words used are ‘in the identified posts for each disability’ and not ‘of identified posts’. This can only mean that out of a minimum 3% of vacancies of posts in the establishments, 1% each has to be given to each of the 3 categories of disability, viz. blind and low vision, hearing impaired and locomotor disabled or cerebral palsy separately and the number of appointments equivalent to the 1% for each disability out of total 3% has to be made against the vacancies in the identified posts. The attempt to read identified posts in the first part itself and also to read the same to have any relation with the computation of reservation is completely misconceived. The third part of the section, which is the proviso, also justifies the abovesaid interpretation that the computation of reservation has to be against the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not against the identified posts. 24.2. The third part of the section, which is the proviso, also justifies the abovesaid interpretation that the computation of reservation has to be against the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not against the identified posts. 24.2. In National Federation of the Blind [(2013) 10 SCC 772] , the Apex Court observed that, had the Legislature intended to mandate for computation of reservation against the identified posts only, there was no need for inserting the proviso to section which empowers the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment either partly or fully from the purview of the section subject to such conditions contained in the notification to be issued in the Official Gazette in this behalf. Certainly, the Legislature did not intend to give such arbitrary power for exemption from reservation for persons with disabilities to be exercised by the appropriate Government when the computation is intended to be made against the identified posts. Another provision of the said Act, which also supports this interpretation, is Section 41, which mandates the appropriate Government to frame incentive schemes for employers with a view to ensure that 5% of their workforce is composed of persons with disabilities. Thus, on a conjoint reading of Sections 33 and 41, it is clear that while Section 33 provides for a minimum level of representation of 3% in the establishments of appropriate Government, the legislature intended to ensure 5% of representation in the entire workforce both in the public as well as private sectors. 25. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , the common question which came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court was with regard to the reservation of vacancies under the 1995 Act for the appointment of differently abled candidates in identified posts in public sector undertakings. In the said decision, the Division Bench was dealing with recruitment to the post of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LDC/Cashier in various State Government-owned Companies/Boards/Corporations, pursuant to a notification dated 28.03.2007 issued by KPSC. In the said decision, the Division Bench was dealing with recruitment to the post of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LDC/Cashier in various State Government-owned Companies/Boards/Corporations, pursuant to a notification dated 28.03.2007 issued by KPSC. A perusal of the Judge’s papers in W.A.No.362 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011, W.A.No.403 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.661 of 2014, W.A.No.550 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.3584 of 2014 and also W.A.No.628 of 2015 arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.2715 of 2014 would show that based on the results of an objective type test (OMR verification) held on 23.02.2008 and subsequent verification of the original documents of the candidates included in the probability list published on 07.02.2009, the ranked list was brought into force with effect from 25.08.2009, vide Ext.P3 notification in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011. Thereafter, for 3% reservation of differently abled candidates as per G.O.(P)No.8/ 2010/SWD dated 01.02.2010, KPSC published on 04.01.2011, the ranked list of differently abled candidates who were found suitable based on the result of the very same objective type test (OMR verification) held on 23.02.2008, vide Ext.P4 addendum notification in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011. 25.1. In E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , before the Division Bench, it was contended by the appellants that the identification of the posts to which the 3% reservation is to be provided under the provisions of the 1995 Act and the turns against which such reservation was to be effected having been fixed by the Government only in 2010, and in the light of the clarificatory order of the Government providing that such reservation is to take effect only from 01.01.2008, no earlier date could have been adopted by KPSC for effecting the reservation under the Act. It was further contended that even in case it is found that backlog vacancies were available to be filled up by appointing persons with physical disability, such appointments could only be made after conducting a special recruitment as provided in the relevant Rules for appointments against backlog vacancies. It was also contended that the judgment of the learned single Judge, in so far as it directed the appointments of persons from a supplementary list, when the main list already stood exhausted, was per se erroneous and is liable to be corrected in appeal. 25.2. It was also contended that the judgment of the learned single Judge, in so far as it directed the appointments of persons from a supplementary list, when the main list already stood exhausted, was per se erroneous and is liable to be corrected in appeal. 25.2. In E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] the party respondents contended that the questions raised by the appellant in the writ appeals are squarely covered against them by the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] and National Federation of the Blind [(2013) 10 SCC 772] and that the appeals are only to be dismissed. It was further contended that none of the employers had preferred appeals or even taken a stand supporting the appellant in these cases. As regards the contention that, in the judgment appealed against in W.A.No.362 of 2015, the direction was to make appointments from a supplementary list when the main list has already been exhausted, it was contended that the writ petition had been filed in October 2011, when the main list was in force. The contention was that the vacancies of differently abled persons were to be filled up from Ext.P4 list attached to Ext.P3 list. In the above circumstances, relying on the provisions of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and the decisions of the Apex Court in Swapna Sukumar v. State of Kerala [2013 (3) KLT 53] and State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj [(2000) 3 SCC 699] , it was contended that since the party respondents had approached the Court during the currency of the list itself, the expiry or exhaustion of the main list thereafter, during the pendency of the writ petition would not stand in the way of their rights for appointment as found by the Court. 25.3. In E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] the Division Bench found that going by the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the vacancies which were in existence in the case of the recruitment in question in W.A.No.362 of 2015 would have to be considered as existing vacancies as on the date of the notification issued by KPSC. In that view of the matter, no question of backlog vacancies or filling up of the same by resorting to a special recruitment would arise in the instant case. Therefore, in view of the unassailed factual findings that the contesting respondent would be entitled to appointment, if the 3% of vacancies from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007, which were liable to be kept apart for differently abled persons, were filled up from the supplementary list, the contention that a special recruitment has to be made in respect of those vacancies fails, since such vacancies can be considered as current vacancies. Since the filling up of the vacancies could have been taken up only after the identification of the posts by the Government, the vacancies could be deemed to have arisen after such identification. Therefore, the said vacancies can be considered as having arisen during the currency of Ext.P3 list, which are liable to be filled up therefrom. Even otherwise, since after the identification of the posts, a process of selection having been carried out by KPSC for publishing Ext.P4 list, which was intended only to fill up the vacancies of differently abled candidates, it can be reckoned as being a list published pursuant to a special recruitment for the purpose of the 1995 Act. 25.4. In E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , the Division Bench found that the provisions of Rule 15(a) and Rule 17A of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules have no strict application to the case on hand in view of the fact that specific provisions contained in the Central enactment, i.e., the 1995 Act, govern the appointments of differently abled persons. The Division Bench found that the reservation of posts and the mode in which such reservation is to be worked out, having been set forth in the 1995 Act, which has been interpreted by the Apex Court by binding precedents, the judgments under appeal have only followed the law laid down on the point. In view of the findings of the Apex Court in the said judgments, the question as to whether reservation is available to differently abled persons under the said Act has to be computed based on the vacancies, which arose with effect from 01.01.1996, is no longer res integra. 25.5. In view of the findings of the Apex Court in the said judgments, the question as to whether reservation is available to differently abled persons under the said Act has to be computed based on the vacancies, which arose with effect from 01.01.1996, is no longer res integra. 25.5. In E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , the Division Bench held that the 1995 Act, having come into force with effect from 01.01.1996, the reservation, which has been held to be not dependent on the identification of the posts, would come into operation with effect from the date of the effect of the 1995 Act. At best, what can be contended is only that the reservation can be operated by KPSC only with effect from the date from which that authority was entrusted with the function of making selections and appointments to the public sector undertakings involved. Even if that be the case, if the vacancies which arose after KPSC was entrusted with the function of making selections and appointments are considered, all the party respondents would be entitled to succeed in their respective writ petitions. The vacancies earmarked for differently abled persons are therefore to be reckoned not with effect from the date of the Government order identifying the posts or with effect from 01.01.2008, the date on which the Government directed by its clarificatory order that the reservation is to take effect, but with effect from 01.01.1996 or at least with effect from the date when KPSC was entrusted with the selection and the number of vacancies as well as the quota and the rota available, would be capable of being ascertained. Therefore, the judgments under appeal are perfectly in order and in strict conformity with the principles set out by the Apex Court in the matter of implementation of the reservation available to differently abled persons. 25.6. Therefore, the judgments under appeal are perfectly in order and in strict conformity with the principles set out by the Apex Court in the matter of implementation of the reservation available to differently abled persons. 25.6. In E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , the Division Bench noticed that another Bench of this Court in Kavitha Balakrishnan v. Prasanna Kumari [ 2015 (4) KLT 700 ] which had occasion to consider the various aspects of the implementation of the reservation available to differently abled persons, has held that the 1995 Act was brought into force recognising the country's obligation as a signatory to the proclamation that was adopted on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asia Pacific Region. The object of the said Act is to integrate persons with disabilities into social mainstream; lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities and for education, training, employment and rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities; and to give effect to the proclamation on full participation and equality of people with disabilities in Asian and Pacific Regions. The 1995 Act, being a social welfare legislation, has to be liberally interpreted so that the purpose of the enactment is fully achieved. Every establishment which is bound by the 1995 Act should imbibe the true spirit of the said Act and implement the statutory provisions. The Division Bench noticed that in Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India [ (2014) 14 SCC 383 ] , the Apex Court alerted appropriate Governments of the need to expedite steps for implementing the mandate of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act in letter and in spirit at the earliest. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the binding precedents, the Division Bench found that the judgment under appeal suffers from no errors of fact or law and accordingly dismissed the writ appeals. 26. The 1 st respondent in E. Dineshan [2016 (2) KHC 910] , who was advised for appointment as Assistant in Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) vide advice memo dated 21.08.2017 issued by KPSC, filed W.P.(C)No.12011 of 2018 raising a claim that he should have been appointed along with the candidates included in the ranked list at Rank Nos.66 and 67 in the year 2021. In the judgment dated 02.08.2018 - Dineshan E. v. State of Kerala [2018:KER:39294] - the learned Single Judge noticed that, when the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011 and when the Division Bench rendered the judgment in W.A.No.362 of 2025 filed by KPSC, there was no direction to appoint the petitioner notionally. Therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any further claim for notional appointment after he got an appointment in the implementation of the directions contained in the said judgments and when he did not have any such claim earlier. When the petitioner does not have any right for a notional appointment, there cannot be any corresponding duty on the respondents to consider such a claim. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was under challenge in W.A.No.2045 of 2018, which ended in dismissal by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 10.01.2020 - Dineshan E. v. State of Kerala [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 6664] 26.1. In Dineshan E. [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 6664] , the Division Bench noticed that the appellant, who has locomotor disability, applied for the post of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LD Clerk/Cashier in the various State Government-owned Companies, pursuant to a notification dated 28.03.2007 issued by KPSC. The appellant was eligible to be considered under the 1995 Act and was placed at Rank No.70 in the ranked list published on 25.08.2009. The persons up to Rank No.67 in the ranked list of disabled persons were advised, following the ratio of 1:1:1 between blind, deaf and orthopaedically handicapped persons. The contention of the appellant in the writ petition was that if the entire vacancies were identified from the time of enactment of the 1995 Act, then necessarily the appellant would have been advised, since then there would have been more vacancies. The Division Bench noticed that, as far as the necessity to identify the posts and appoint persons with disabilities to the 3% vacancies from the time of enactment of the 1995 Act, there cannot be any dispute. It has been so declared by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] 26.2. The Division Bench noticed that, as far as the necessity to identify the posts and appoint persons with disabilities to the 3% vacancies from the time of enactment of the 1995 Act, there cannot be any dispute. It has been so declared by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] 26.2. In Dineshan E. [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 6664] relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the learned counsel for the appellant contended before the Division Bench that in the said case the Delhi High Court had granted the benefit of appointment to the petitioner therein and seniority was also directed to be given along with his batch mates, who took the examination in the year 2006. If the vacancies were reported in time, after Rank No.67 was appointed, the appellant would also have been appointed immediately thereafter. Therefore, the appellant sought notional benefits from 2012, though he was appointed in 2017. The learned Standing Counsel for KSEB submitted that on the declaration made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Board had identified 48 backlog vacancies and reported the vacancies to which the appellant was appointed. There was no vacancy available at the time of notification, since the posts were not identified. The Division Bench was unable to countenance the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB, since identification of posts was inconsequential for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 1995 Act as found by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] 26.3. In Dineshan E. [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 6664] , the Division Bench noticed that there is a distinction insofar as the relief granted in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , and the relief sought by the appellant in W.P.(C)No.12011 of 2018, which is a subsequent litigation. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] , the claim was that though there were five identified vacancies available in the visually handicapped category, the appointment was made only against one vacancy. Ravi Prakash Gupta was in the list, being a visually handicapped person, who was not appointed. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] , the claim was that though there were five identified vacancies available in the visually handicapped category, the appointment was made only against one vacancy. Ravi Prakash Gupta was in the list, being a visually handicapped person, who was not appointed. In the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Division Bench noticed the response received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and found seven backlog vacancies from the year 1996 capable of being filled up from the subject list. It was in such circumstances that a direction was issued to appoint the writ petitioner and also directed notional seniority along with his batchmates. The said judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed by the Apex Court. In the case at hand, similar to Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the appellant had agitated the cause once in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011, in which the learned Single Judge passed the judgment dated 20.10.2014. The prayer for adjustment from the date on which normally he could have been advised, if the identification of posts and availability of backlog vacancies were made at the proper time, was a prayer available to the appellant at that point of time itself. The appellant did not seek such a prayer before the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, he cannot be heard to seek such a prayer in a subsequent litigation after his appointment has been made, which, at that stage, involves third-party rights. The Division Bench understood the angst of the appellant insofar as having to wait for almost five years to get an appointment from a ranked list published in the year 2009; five years being from the year 2012, in which year he would have normally got an appointment if the backlog vacancies were identified earlier. The appellant, having not sought that prayer in the first litigation initiated, cannot seek it in a subsequent litigation. 27. The appellant, having not sought that prayer in the first litigation initiated, cannot seek it in a subsequent litigation. 27. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. George Mathew [2022:KER:15867] , a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Government order dated 27.09.2021, which stands corrected by the order dated 21.12.2021 correcting the description of the post as Computer Programmer-cum-Operator (Beverages Corporation), whereby the said post was identified as the post suitable for appointment of differently abled persons would relate back to the commencement of the 1995 Act. As held in the decision of the Division Bench in E. Dineshan [2016 (2) KHC 910] , for the purpose of backlog vacancies there is no necessity for a special recruitment and the pending ranked list could be utilised appropriately as against the vacancies reported. Therefore, the Division Bench ordered that the competent authority in KPSC will prepare a special ranked list for differently abled candidates from among the candidates considered for selection covered by the notification dated 15.11.2023 and the ranked list dated 03.07.2019 and if any of the turns of differently abled candidates like turn Nos.1, 34 and 66 have been bypassed, then the same should be recouped as against the next available vacancy without any further delay in advising such candidates. On the issue as to whether in the case of candidates belonging to categories I and II are not available in the present zone of consideration, candidates belonging subcategory III could be straightaway considered, etc. are left open to be raised and decided at the appropriate stage, in the manner known to law. The Division Bench directed that after the preparation of special ranked list of differently abled candidates as above, KPSC should take necessary steps to implement the mandate contained in the provisions of the 2016 Act, more particularly Section 34 thereof, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , National Federation of the Blind [ (2013) 10 SCC 772 ] and the law laid down by this Court in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] 28. As per the mandate of Section 33 of the 2016 Act, the appropriate Government shall identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved, in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 , and shall undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years. Section 33 provides for the constitution of an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for the identification of such posts. Section 32 of the earlier enactment, i.e., the 1995 Act, deals with the identification of posts and Section 33 deals with the reservation of posts. 29. As held by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , in the context of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act, as provided in Section 32 , the posts have to be identified for reservation for the purpose of Section 33 , but such identification was meant to be simultaneously undertaken with the coming into operation of the said Act, to give effect to the provisions of Section 33 . The legislature never intended the provisions of Section 32 to be used as a tool to deny the benefits of Section 33 to these categories of disabled persons indicated therein. 30. In Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the claim was that though there were five identified vacancies available in the visually handicapped category, the appointment was made only against one vacancy. Ravi Prakash Gupta was in the list, being a visually handicapped person, who was not appointed. In the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Division Bench noticed the response received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and found seven backlog vacancies from the year 1996 capable of being filled up from the subject list. It was in such circumstances that a direction was issued to appoint the writ petitioner and also directed notional seniority along with his batchmates. Therefore, the Apex Court affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 31. It was in such circumstances that a direction was issued to appoint the writ petitioner and also directed notional seniority along with his batchmates. Therefore, the Apex Court affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 31. As held by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , unless posts are identified for the purposes of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, no appointments from the reserved categories contained therein can be made. To such an extent, the provisions of Section 33 are dependent on Section 32 . But the extent of such dependence is for the purpose of making appointments and not for the purpose of making reservation. In other words, the reservation under Section 33 is not dependent on identification. A duty has been cast upon the appropriate Government to make appointments in the number of posts reserved for the three categories mentioned in Section 33 with persons suffering from the disabilities spelt out therein. 32. As held by a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in National Federation of the Blind [ (2013) 10 SCC 772 ] , in the light of the decision in Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626] , the scope of identification under Section 32 of the 1995 Act comes into the picture only at the time of appointment of a person in the post identified for disabled persons and identification of posts is not relevant at the time of computing 3% reservation under Section 33 of the said Act. A reading of Section 33 establishes the intention of the Legislature that the reservation of 3% for differently abled persons should be computed based on total vacancies in the strength of a cadre and not based on the vacancies available in the identified posts. 33. As already noticed hereinbefore, in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , as borne out from the Judge’s papers in W.A.No.362 of 2015 and connected matters, the Division Bench was dealing with a case in which, based on the results of an objective type test (OMR verification) held on 23.02.2008 and subsequent verification of the original documents of the candidates included in the probability list published on 07.02.2009, the ranked list was brought into force with effect from 25.08.2009, vide Ext.P3 notification in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011. Thereafter, when the post was identified for 3% reservation of differently abled candidates as per G.O.(P)No.8/2010/SWD dated 01.02.2010, KPSC published on 04.01.2011, vide Ext.P4 addendum notification in W.P.(C)No.27234 of 2011, the ranked list of differently abled candidates who were found suitable based on the result of the very same objective type test (OMR verification) held on 23.02.2008. 34. In E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , on the aforesaid factual matrix obtained in the case, the Division Bench held that, going by the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] , the vacancies which were in existence in the case of the recruitment in question in W.A.No.362 of 2015 would have to be considered as existing vacancies as on the date of the notification issued by KPSC. In that view of the matter, no question of backlog vacancies or filling up of the same by resorting to a special recruitment would arise in the said case. Therefore, in view of the unassailed factual findings that the contesting respondent would be entitled to appointment, if 3% of vacancies from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007, which were liable to be kept apart for differently abled persons, were filled up from the supplementary list, the contention that a special recruitment has to be made in respect of those vacancies fails, since such vacancies can be considered as current vacancies. The Division Bench held that, since the filling up of the vacancies could have been taken up only after the identification of the posts by the Government, the vacancies could be deemed to have arisen after such identification. Therefore, the said vacancies can be considered as having arisen during the currency of Ext.P3 list, which are liable to be filled up therefrom. Even otherwise, since after the identification of the posts, a process of selection having been carried out by KPSC for publishing Ext.P4 list, which was intended only to fill up the vacancies of differently abled candidates, it can be reckoned as being a list published pursuant to a special recruitment for the purpose of the 1995 Act. 35. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC and the learned Senior Government Pleader would place reliance on Annexure A2 Government order, Annexure A3 circular and Annexure A4 Government letter produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2025. 35. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC and the learned Senior Government Pleader would place reliance on Annexure A2 Government order, Annexure A3 circular and Annexure A4 Government letter produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2025. By Annexure A2 Government order dated 14.08.2020, it was ordered that if, after the publication of the ranked list, the post has been identified for differently abled candidates, the reservation needs to be made applicable only from the next ranked list. Based on Annexure A2 Government order, KPSC issued Annexure A3 circular dated 18.02.2021, wherein it is provided that if the identification of the post is after the notification, the reservation for differently abled candidates needs to be made only in future selections, and it need not be implemented in the present selection. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] and also that of this Court in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , KPSC addressed the Government seeking a review of Annexure A2 order. However, the Government, vide Annexure A4 letter dated 12.03.2025, informed KPSC that the Government, after examining the matter, decided not to review Annexure A2 order dated 14.08.2020. 36. In Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka [(2020) 19 SCC 572] , the Apex Court noticed that many differently abled persons are living in poverty and deplorable conditions and hence they are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and the lives of their families and the community. 37. The stand taken by the Government in Annexure A2 order dated 14.08.2020, and also Annexure A4 letter dated 12.03.2025, whereby the request made by KPSC seeking a review of Annexure A2 order stands rejected, and also the stand taken by KPSC in Annexure A3 circular dated 18.02.2021, are per se arbitrary and patently illegal, which run counter to the legislative intent with which the 2016 Act was enacted. The acceptance of such a stand would render nugatory the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act for differently abled persons with benchmark disabilities. The above stand taken in Annexures A2 to A4 is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] and that laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] . The above stand taken in Annexures A2 to A4 is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] and that laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] . It even strikes at the foundation of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the 2016 Act, which casts a statutory duty upon the appropriate Government to provide reservation for differently abled persons with benchmark disability, in the posts identified in every Government establishment by the expert committee constituted under the provisions of Section 33 of the said Act. Therefore, we reject as untenable the above stand taken by the Government and KPSC in Annexures A2 to A4. 38. As borne out from the Judge’s papers in W.A.No.362 of 2015 and connected matters, the supplementary list referred to by the Division Bench in E. Dineshan [ 2016 (2) KHC 910 ] , was the ranked list of differently abled candidates, who were found suitable based on the result of the very same objective type test (OMR verification) held on 23.02.2008, published by KPSC on 04.01.2011, vide Ext.P4 addendum notification in W.P.(C)No. 27234 of 2011, when the post was identified for 3% reservation of differently abled candidates as per G.O.(P)No.8/2010/SWD dated 01.02.2010. The said list was not a supplementary list for communal reservation, consisting of the candidates eligible for such reservation, as contended by the 1 st respondent-petitioner. 39. In the instant case, KPSC published Ext.P3 notification dated 16.06.2021 for appointment to the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in various Universities in Kerala. The ranked list published by KPSC, vide Ext.P4 notification, came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. In Ext.P4 ranked list, the 1 st respondent-petitioner is Rank No.11 in the supplementary list for Ezhava/Thiyya/Billava category. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.32606 of 2023, Ext.P10 Government order dated 14.02.2024 was issued, identifying the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, invoking the provisions under Section 33 of the 2016 Act, as suitable for 4% reservation provided under Section 34 for differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities. 40. 40. In view of the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act, read with the provisions contained in Section 33 regarding identification of posts, the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta [ (2010) 7 SCC 626 ] and that of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in E. Dineshan [2016 (2) KHC 910] , 4% vacancies for reservation provided under Section 34 of the said Act for differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, identified vide Ext.P10 Government order dated 14.02.2024, have to be considered as having arisen during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. Such vacancies in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala are to be filled up, during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, by differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities available in the said ranked list (main list and supplementary lists for communal reservations), after preparing a separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, based on their ranking in Ext.P4 ranked list, to comply with the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act. In that view of the matter, the direction contained in the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2024, whereby KPSC has been directed to advice the 1 st respondent- petitioner, who is a candidate included in the supplementary list for communal reservation in Ext.P4 ranked list, for appointment as Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, against one vacancy identified for the category locomotor disability under Section 34 (1)(c) of the 2016 Act, without preparing a separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled persons with benchmark disabilities, in the manner stated as above, cannot be sustained in law. 41. As per Note (3) of Ext.P4 notification, the ranked list published by KPSC will be in force till the publication of a new ranked list after the expiry of a minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. 41. As per Note (3) of Ext.P4 notification, the ranked list published by KPSC will be in force till the publication of a new ranked list after the expiry of a minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. The candidates from the ranked list will be advised for the appointment, in accordance with the rules and orders regarding reservation and rotation, as amended from time to time, if applicable, against the vacancies reported to KPSC during the pendency of the ranked list. The ranked list for the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, published vide Ext.P4 notification issued by KPSC, came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would submit that the said ranked list is still in force. In such circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.32605 of 2023. The said writ petition is disposed of by directing the appellant KPSC, the 2 nd respondent in the writ petition, and the 1 st respondent State to consider 4% vacancies for reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act for differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala, identified vide Ext.P10 Government order dated 14.02.2024, as having arisen during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, which came into force with effect from 17.06.2023. Such vacancies in the post of Professional Assistant Gr.II (Library) in the Universities in Kerala shall be filled up, during the currency of Ext.P4 ranked list, by differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities available in the said ranked list (main list and supplementary lists for communal reservations), after preparing a separate ranked list for reservation of differently abled candidates with benchmark disabilities, based on their ranking in Ext.P4 ranked list, as per the mandatory requirements of the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act. Such a ranked list shall be published, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the eligible candidates, as per their position in the said ranked list, shall be advised for appointment, in accordance with the reservation provided under Section 34 of the 2016 Act, within a further period of one month.