JUDGMENT - P.C.:---By consent rule called out. Respondents waive service. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. 2. This writ petition highlights the lack of sympathetic consideration for physically challenged persons on the part of the State as well as the Central Government and its authorities. 3. The petitioner is a well qualified person, who, despite the physical challenge nature has inflicted on him by reason of blindness, managed to obtain academical degrees of Bachelors and Masters and sought permission for taking the examination to qualify as a probationary Officer for employment in the respondent-Bank. This was refused to him on the ground that he was visually challenged. The petitioner came before this Court to enforce his rights under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By an interim order made on February 11, 1999, this Court directed the first respondent to permit the petitioner to take the probationary examination. Such permission has been given and we are told that with the help of a scribe given by the first respondent, the petitioner has already appeared for the examination the results whereof are awaited. 3-A. The first respondent was also directed by orders made from time to time to put on affidavit the different types of jobs identified in which persons with physically challenged (we are consciously using the word "challenged" instead of "disability") can be employed. By the affidavit dated June 10, 1999 filed on behalf of the first respondent it is contended that a high power committee of the first respondent was appointed to identify the posts in which persons who are physically challenged, particularly those visually challenged, would be appointed. The affidavit states that in the clerical cadre, candidates could be accommodated in posts such as Telephone Operator, Enquiry Counter and Stenographer. The persons who are blind or partially blind, otherwise eligible, would be permitted to compete along with other employees for promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale I in the secretariats of top executives in Head Office, Regional Office in Personnel, Law, Welfare and in Rajbhasha Department. The affidavit ultimately says that the posts in scale II and above require higher job responsibility and are not found suitable for appointment of such physically challenged candidates. The affidavit ultimately says that the posts in scale II and above require higher job responsibility and are not found suitable for appointment of such physically challenged candidates. One of the reasons given in the affidavit in support of this decision is that a visually challenged person cannot be appointed in scale II and above posts as the job involves visual verification of vouchers and instruments etc. to ensure accuracy. It is contended that, this is a task, at least at the present state of technology, which is carried out by visual inspection. Hence, it is contended that visually challenged persons cannot be appointed on such posts. 4. It is true that the state of technology in India has not sufficiently developed to permit visually challenged persons to verify the accuracy, of vouchers and instruments by merely running them through the computer. In order to understand how the Union of India as the appropriate Government has dealt with this problem, we had issued notice to the Union of India. The learned Counsel appears for the Union of India states that he has no instructions whatsoever in the matter. We feel sorry that despite notices given in writ petition before admission no one appears in Court to assist the Court with proper inputs. 5. Section 32 of the Act makes it mandatory for the appropriate Government to carry out certain duties; (a) identify posts in the establishments which can be reserved for the persons with disability, and (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and update the list taking into consideration the developments in technology. Section 33 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government to appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies, being not less than three per cent, for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability. As at present advised, we are not able to ascertain as to what exactly the Central Government as the appropriate Government done in discharge of its statutory obligations under sections 32 and 33 of the Act. As at present advised, we are not able to ascertain as to what exactly the Central Government as the appropriate Government done in discharge of its statutory obligations under sections 32 and 33 of the Act. The Central Government must appreciate that this is a problem not merely revolving around sympathy, but also requires discharge of statutory obligations, the failure of which is justifiable under the Constitution. We are, therefore, constrained to issue a direction to the Central Government to carry out its statutory obligations under sections 32 and 33 of the Act within a definite time-frame. 6. Hence, writ petition allowed. Rule is made absolute in the following terms: A) The respondents shall carry out the identification of posts as required under section 32 of the Act and reservation of posts in favour of persons physically challenged as contained in section 33 of the Act, within a period of six months from today. B) There shall, of course, be liberty to the petitioner to move this Court for further directions after the process of identification and reservations of posts is completed. No order as to costs. The disposal of this writ petition does not preclude the first respondent from employing the petitioner in an appropriate post consistent with the present policy and his results in the Probationary Officer's examination. Certified copy be expedited. Writ petition allowed. -----