The court emphasized the duty of the government to consider the appointment of a colour-blind individual to suitable posts based on the nature of duties and the individual's capabilities.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) 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 27/3/1995, this court, white 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 Ophthalmologist or Board. "despite the order, the government took no action in that behalf. On the other hand, the appellant had filed on 2/5/1995 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.

( 3 ) 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 ofthis 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.

( 4 ) THE appeal is allowed. No costs.