Supreme Court of India

NANDKUMAR NARAYANRAO GHODMAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: 1995 INSC 649
Decided: 30 October 1995
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

The Court held that the Government must consider appointing the colour‑blind appellant to any Agricultural Officer (Class II) post except the few that require perfect vision, and order his appointment within two months.

Summary

The appellant, a colour‑blind candidate, was selected by the Public Service Commission for the post of Agricultural Officer (Class II) but was not appointed because of his visual handicap. The appellant challenged the refusal before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his claim, leading him to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether colour blindness, which does not affect the duties of most Agricultural Officer posts, could lawfully bar his appointment. Relying on the affidavit that only five of the thirty‑five available posts required perfect vision, the Court directed the Government to consider the appellant for any post other than those five. It ordered that the appointment be made within two months of receipt of the order, and dismissed the respondents' objections. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a candidate handicapped by colour blindness can be lawfully denied appointment to a post selected by the Public Service Commission when the disability does not affect the performance of most duties.
Whether the Government is obligated to consider the appellant for any suitable Agricultural Officer (Class II) post except those that specifically require perfect vision.
Whether the refusal to appoint the appellant violates the constitutional principle of equality and non‑discrimination.

Subjects

appointmenthandicapcolour blindnesspublic service commissionequalitydiscriminationagricultural officercivil service

Judgment

             NANDKUMAR NARAYANRAO GHODMARE                                     A
                                     v.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                            OCTOBER 30, 1995

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                             B

        SeJVice Law :

      Appointment-Appellant handicapped because of colour b/ind-
nes,-Selection by Public Se1vice Commission-Appointment not made due           C
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           D
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     E
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

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

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

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

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.                                                         H
                                    565
    566                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         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 :

B            "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
C            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
D   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
E   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.

    R.P.                                                         Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "appointment"Sign in to search