the medical certificate at Exhibit “C” (page 23) indicated that the petitioner was fit for the post of clerk, but since his hearing disability was assessed at 100%, the petitioner's case was referred back to the Corporation for doing the needful. It is submitted that the decision of the Corporation not to appoint the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had 100% hearing disability was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It is submitted that the Corporation was, therefore, required to be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of clerk reserved for persons with hearing disability. It is submitted that merely because the Corporation did not rectify the mistake at that time and subsequently sought to rectify the mistake by issuing the two advertisements in October, 2011 mentioning that the persons with 100% hearing disability were also eligible to apply for the post reserved for candidates with hearing disability, the second advertisement itself was sufficient to hold that the Corporation had acted illegally in the year 2008. It is, therefore, submitted that the Corporation be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post reserved for person with hearing disability in the first selection process which took place in the year 2008 and merely because the Corporation has now raised the cut-off percentage to 65% in the second recruitment round in October, 2011 the petitioner cannot be denied appointment to the post of clerk on the ground that the petitioner had secured only 57% marks.
