VoxJuris
Home › 1995 › Supreme Court of India

Nandkumar Narayanrao Ghodmare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Appeal(s) allowed
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
30 October 1995
Bench
K. Ramaswamy, B. L. Hansaria
Result
Appeal allowed.

Headnote

SeJVice Law :

Appointment-Appellant handicapped because of colour b/ind-nes,-Selection by Public Se1vice Commission-Appointment not made due to handicap-Held, appellant may be considered for appointment on suitable post.

The appellant was handicapped because of colour blindness. He was selected by the Public Service Commission; but could not be appointed due to his handicap. Having failed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the appellant filed the appeal by special leave.

Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : It would be just and proper that the Government should consider. the case of the appellant to be appointed to any of the posts of Agricultural Officer of Class II Service other than the 5 posts mentioned by the appellant in his affidavit. The appellant should submit a copy of the affidavit filed before this Court to the Department concerned for consider-ing his case. Appointment should be made within two months. [566-EJ

Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.

Judgment

Leave granted.

Admittedly, the appellant is handicapped because of colour blind-ness. He was admittedly selected by the Public Service Commission but· appointment could not be made on account of his handicap. When the matter came up on March 27, 1995, this Court while issuing notice passed order as follows :

"Petitioners should also give the nature of the duties he had to perform and whether his colour blindness would interfere with the discharge of his duties. Respondents also would stale in this behalf of their stand. If it is needed, they can also sent the petitioner for medical examination by an expert Government Ophtholmogist or Board."

Despite the order, the Government took no action in that behalf. On the other hand, the appellant had filed on May 2, 1995. an affidavit detailing that as per the information he had secured, there were 35 posts in the Department and only five posts required perfect vision without colour blindness. Those five posts are mention~d in the affidavit. In other posts, colour blindness was not an impediment for him to be appointed.

Under these circumstances, we deem it just and proper that the Government should consider the case of the appellant to be appointed to any of the posts of Agricultural Officer of Class II Service other than the 5 posts mentioned by him in his affidavit. The appellant should enclose a copy of this affidavit filed before us to the Department concerned for considering his case. Appointment should be made within two months from the date of the receipt of this order.

The appeal is allowed. No costs.

Case details

Arising from

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9856 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.94 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in 0.A. No. 884 of 1993.

Appearances

M.D. Adkar, S.D. Singh and Ejaz Maqbool for the Appellant. D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.

Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.