along with the petitioners, the Government apparently taking a lenient and populist view, made certain amendments to the 1963 Rules, making the aforesaid category of persons eligible to apply for the post of Jail Warder. On the strength of the amendments made, an advertisement was issued. It is true that some of the candidates, whose services were terminated along with the petitioners and who had applied in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, after undergoing the selection process, were appointed as Jail Warders, but since the post in question was of Jail Warder, the advertisement clearly barred applications by physically handicapped persons. Since the petitioners, in the meanwhile, had incurred physical disability to the extent of 82% and 100% respectively, they could not apply for the post of Jail Warder. Considering that the post in question was of Jail Warder, who is required to maintain vigil within a jail, I find no illegality in the advertisement, which barred applications by physically handicapped persons. It is unfortunate that the petitioners had incurred physical disability before they could make applications in pursuance to the impugned advertisement, but such sympathy, which I may have for them, cannot be ordered to be translated into a right.
