Supreme Court of India
NANDKUMAR NARAYANRAO GHODMARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 30 October 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 565 · 1995 INSC 649
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 565, margin H
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 :
p. 566, margin A
"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
p. 566, margin B
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.
p. 566, margin C
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.
p. 566, margin D
The appeal is allowed. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.
p. 566, margin E