Judgment:- A.H. JOSHI, J. (1) RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard with consent of learned advocates. (2) THE petitioner is making a grievance that he was not allowed to join duty upon reappointment on account of his being declared medically unfit due to visual handicap. (3) PETITIONER has placed reliance upon two reported judgments, namely: (a) Kunal Singh v. Union of India and another AIR 2003 SC 1623 : (2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003-II-LLJ-735 and (b) Metropolitan Transport Corporation ltd., Chennai v. K. Ravichandran, 2005-II-LLJ-926 (Mad-DB) (4) THESE judgments are on the point of duty of employer under the provisions of the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. According to the petitioner, the employer should have identified the post to be offered to the petitioner, and should have given him employment. (5) IT has to be appreciated that sheerly due to provisions of the said Act, none gets an absolute right of appointment. This Court finds that the employer has to identify the post on which the opportunity of employment can be given to the persons having some physical challenge. The cases of persons with disability can be considered by the employer against such post. (6) THIS Court has already noted that the very fact that the petitioner has been certified to have handicap and, therefore, has not been permitted to join duty, by itself is not a ground of right of employment or absorption on any particular post. The employer, however, will have to undergo the exercise of identifying the post and thereafter in the class of those for whom the post can be reserved, the petitioner's candidature may be considered. (7) LEARNED advocate Mr. Lahiri states that the petitioner is willing to make an application for absorption/appointment of petitioner on a post, which the employer may identify, where the person with visual handicap can be accommodated, and all details in that regard be ascertained and notified by the respondents. According to learned advocate Mr. Lahiri, the petitioner would make such application within fifteen days from today. (8) THE candidature of the petitioner can be considered in due course after the exercise is complete. According to learned advocate Mr. Lahiri, the petitioner would make such application within fifteen days from today. (8) THE candidature of the petitioner can be considered in due course after the exercise is complete. (9) WE, therefore, direct the respondents to carry out the exercise required under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, within three months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. If the petitioner is found eligible, his application be considered in accordance with law on its own merits. (10) RULE is made absolute in terms of para 9 above. Parties to bear own costs.