JUDGMENT 1. - It is stated that this matter is covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Arvind Kumar Joshi v. State of Rajasthan, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3708/2002, decided on 5.9.2006, reported in 2006(4) RLW 3149 . In the aforesaid case, the issue was for appointment of a blind person on the post of School Lecturer (Hindi). Since benefit of reservation was not extended to a blind person for such appointment, writ petition was filed. In the present matter, appointment is to the post of School Lecturer (Political Science). Hence, the principle laid down by this court in the case of Arvind Kumar Joshi (supra) also applies to the present matter. Even the Government of India extended benefit of appointment to blind persons etc. except in few subjects like Mathematics where use of blackboard is necessary but for the post of School Lecturer (Political Science) such rigour does not exist. 2. The position of law aforesaid is not disputed by learned counsel for respondents. 3. I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused the judgment in reference. 4. Para 19 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted thus - "19.A careful perusal of the aforesaid appendix would make it clear that the Government of India identified the post of College Lecturer for providing reservation to the blind not only in language subjects such as Hindi, Sanskrit, English etc but also in subjects like History, Geography, Commerce, Sociology, Philosophy, Economics and Political Science. When the Act of 1995 came in force, identification of various posts for persons having different kind of disabilities already made in O.M. Dated 25th November, 1986 formed basis for such identification statutorily required by Section 32 of the Act of 1995.Such identification made by the Government of India continued to remain valid for providing reservation to disabled persons with reference to Section 32 of the Act of 1995 till this list of identified posts was updated by the Government of India vide their Notification No. 178 dated 30th June, 2001. In this list also, the post of University/College/School Teacher for the blind and low-vision was included as identified post for providing reservation to them at Serial No.24-27 on page 592 thereof. In this list also, the post of University/College/School Teacher for the blind and low-vision was included as identified post for providing reservation to them at Serial No.24-27 on page 592 thereof. In the circumstances therefore when the post of College Lecturer and that too in the language subject of Hindi stood identified by the Government of India with reference to the provisions of Section 32 of the Act of 1995, much earlier than the posts in question were advertised, there was no reason not to extend the benefit of reservation to the blinds in the State of Rajasthan to a lower post like School Lecturer(Hindi). Even if in the Schedule I and II appended to the original Rules of 2000, the State Government did not identify the post of School Lecturer(Hindi) as one for which reservation could be given to the persons with disability of blindness, this difficulty was over come by notification dated 10th October, 2002 by which Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of 2000 were amended thereby deleting Schedule I and II appended thereto and adopting identification of the posts made by Government of India. 20. Identification of the posts on which reservation can be given to the persons with disability has to be made by the appropriate Government with reference to Section 32 of the Act of 1995. "Appropriate Government" has been defined in Section 2(a) to mean (i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment wholly or substantially financed by that Government, or a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonment Act, 1924, the Central Government(ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment wholly or substantially financed by that Government or any local authority, other than a Cantonment Board, the State Government. "Blindness" has also been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1995 a person suffers from either total absence of sight; or visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200(snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses; or limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse. "Blindness" has also been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1995 a person suffers from either total absence of sight; or visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200(snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses; or limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of 20 degree or worse. It is difficult to appreciate that when blindness for the purpose of the Act of 1995 is defined by a single provision namely Section 2(b) , how can the blind claiming reservation with reference to provisions of that Act, be treated dis-similarly by two different appropriate Governments particularly when much prior to the recruitment in question, the post of School Lecturer(Hindi) stood identified by one such appropriate Government (Government of India) which was later adopted by another. Curiously enough, when this very post was identified for the purpose of reservation of blinds by the Government of India in exercise of very same power which the State Government also possessed, how possibly could one appropriate Government feign complete blindness to such identification made by another. Such a dichotomy is very hard to appreciate and difficult to approve. Impediment of law if there was any in giving reservation to the blind on the post of School Lecturer(Hindi) was already removed once when the Government of Rajasthan decided to adopt the identification made by the Government of India by amending Rules of 2000 vide Notification dated 10.10.2002. This adoption of identification of posts which was made way back in the year 1986, in my view would relate back to the identification as originally made by the Government of India at least from the date when Rules of 2000 were enforced and would be applicable from their inception because the source of power for both the Governments in making such identification is traceable to the same common provision namely, Section 32 of the Act of 1995 and the recipient of the benefit of the reservation namely blind is also common and identifiable with reference to very same provision of the definition of blindness namely, Section 2(b) of the Act of 1995. If this were not to be interpreted so, it would simply tantamount to discriminating against the persons with disability of blindness in the State of Rajasthan vis-a-vis those claiming similar benefits with reference to the identification made by the Central Government in its services in the State of Rajasthan in giving effect and implementation of the very same Act of 1995 thereby treating equals unequally violating their right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner eligible for reservation under the Rules of 2000 read with Section 32 of the Act of 1995 being arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory is liable to be declared illegal and unconstitutional and is accordingly so declared. 5. In the light of the paras quoted above, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of School Lecturer (Political Science) subject to his merit in the reserve quota meant for that. Necessary exercise may be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. It goes without saying that if petitioner stands in merit in the quote to which he belongs, order of appointment would be issued by the respondents within the time give above. Petitioner would be entitled to the benefits as given in the case of Arvind Kumar Joshi (supra).Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******