Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NANDKUMAR NARAYANRAO GHODMARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Supreme Court Cases

1995 SCC (6) 720 JT 1995 (8) 156 1995 SCALE (6)198

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NANDKUMAR NARAYANRAO GHODMARE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS [1995] RD-SC 588 (30 October 1995)

RAMASWAMY, K.

RAMASWAMY, K.

HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION: 1995 SCC (6) 720 JT 1995 (8) 156 1995 SCALE (6)198

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

O R D E R Leave granted.

Admittedly, the appellant is handicapped because of colour blindness. 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:- "Petitioner should also give the nature of the duties he has to perform and whether his colour blindness would interfere with the discharge of his duties. Respondents also would state in this behalf of their stand. If it is needed, they can also send 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 mentioned 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 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.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.