JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 2. The old notion that the justice is blind cannot be accepted under the new circumstances particularly after coming into force of the Constitution. The pre-amble of the Constitution provides the right to secure to all of its citizens- Justice-Social, Economic and Political. Chapter-IV of the Constitution directs the State Government to strive for the betterment of the society and betterment of the citizens. The very concept of "Sarve Bhawantu Sukhina" has been accepted by the framers of the Constitution and directions have been given to the State to strive towards the achievement of that object. 3. Here, I am hearing a cry of the blind man and I cannot apply the old notion that the justice is blind. A Judge should not be blind towards the society, towards the nation and should balance and monitor how working is going on. 4. Mr. Rastogi, appearing on behalf of the blind man, compels me to think the blindness of those persons who have been entrusted with the implementation of the Constitution. It seems that they have lost the sense of humanitarian approach. So, it is a case of blind versus blind a blind by nature, physically and by conscience. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner is a blind man and he was appointed as Teacher vide Order dated 10.2.86 (Annex. 3). He continued in service and might have discharged his duties faithfully. Vide Annex. 4. dated 17.5.86 his services were terminated on the ground that it was the last day of educational session. 6. The Department of the State is meant for enlightening the people and not for blinding the conscience of the people. It seems that the blind person could not enlighten the conscience of the department which resulted in the loss of employment. 7. Mr. Rastogi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has invited my attention to Annexure 5, the letter issued by the Government of India. Directions were issued that the handicapped persons should be given employment. State of Rajasthan has also issued the Circular (Annex. 6) directing that the persons who are handicapped, should be given appointment and back-log should be removed. Mr. Rastogi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has invited my attention to Annexure 5, the letter issued by the Government of India. Directions were issued that the handicapped persons should be given employment. State of Rajasthan has also issued the Circular (Annex. 6) directing that the persons who are handicapped, should be given appointment and back-log should be removed. Above all, the Social Welfare Department of State of Rajasthan issued a Circular No. 25653/852, dated 15.5.86 and directed that the appointments of all the persons who are in employment and who are physically handicapped, should be regularised. Special directions were given that the persons who are on daily wages or who are holding ad hoc appointments should be regularised. 8. Education Department can say that it is a Circular of the Social Welfare Department and were not concerned with that departmental order of their department. We are living in a democratic set up and the Council of Ministers is headed by the Chief Minister. There is a collective responsibility of all the departments and one department cannot disown the actions of the other department. if the action of the other department is disowned it amounts to disowing the collective responsibility provided under the Constitution and, may be considered as renouncing the authority of the Chief Minister. Thus, any Circular issued by the Social Welfare Department is equally binding on the Education Department unless it is withdrawn. The Education Department can move to the Cabinet for reconsideration and request the Social Welfare Department for the withdrawal of the Circular so issued. Unilateral action of one department, which conflicts with other also will not serve the cause; of the Government. 9. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Circular dated 15.5-86 was approved by the Chief Secretary, who happens to be the Chief Executive Authority for implementing the policies of the State. Thus, it is a case of violation of the Circular (Annex. 7), dated 15-5-86, issued by the Social Welfare Department which is binding in this case. In the circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the State Government to regularise the services of the blind man who is moving from pillar to post for getting employment. Thus, it is a case of violation of the Circular (Annex. 7), dated 15-5-86, issued by the Social Welfare Department which is binding in this case. In the circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the State Government to regularise the services of the blind man who is moving from pillar to post for getting employment. It is expected that now the blind conscience of those persons who have been entrusted with the implementation of the Welfare Scheme, will wash out the blindness and they will see the light of the- day. 10. In the result, the writ petition is accepted in the light of the Circular, dated 15-5-86 (Annex. 7). Petitioner may be reinstated forthwith. However, he will not be entitled for back wages. His services may be regularised immediately. 11. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******