Gujarat High Court
Babu Mangabhai Kathad vs Director General And Inspector General ... on 4 August, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 975 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2021
==========================================================
BABU MANGABHAI KATHAD
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Heard Ms. Mamta Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents State.
2. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the learned Single judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed on the ground of delay. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in similar situation, writ petitions filed with substantial delay, have been entertained by this Court and the Apex Court had passed such an order in Special leave to Appeal No. Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 9199 of 2024, wherein the challenge was to the decision of the Division bench of this Court dated 21.06.2022 of dismissal of the writ petition as also the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground of delay.
3. Pertinent is to note that the original petitioner/appellant herein had filed the writ petition namely Special Civil application No. 10838 of 2021 in the month of July, 2021 with the following reliefs :
"(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same by issuing Notice for final disposal on returnable date;
(b) Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the unfit certificate issued by the Resp.3 Dtd. 11.04.2009;
(c)Your Lordships be pleased to issue appointment in armed police constable with all consequential benefits all back wages and be pleased to direct the Respo.1 to issue appointment order forewith.
(d) Your Lordship be pleased to issue alternative remedy in the favour fo the petitioner;
(e) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deem fit by Your Lordship in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justices;"
4. Assertions made in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner had participated in a direct recruitment exercise initiated vide advertisement dated 1-7-2008/2009 for direct recruitment of Armed and Un-armed constable. After clearing the written examination and the interview, a letter was issued to the petitioner on 09.02.2009 keeping him in the list of 4275 selected candidates. However, in the medical examination conducted on 11.04.2009, the petitioner had been declared unfit on account of colour vision blindness.
5. The contention is that the petitioner made a representation Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined before the competent authority on 28.06.2020, when he came to know about the orders passed by this Court in giving appointment to such selected candidates, who have been rejected by the medical board being suffering from Colour vision blindness and thereafter, has approached this Court with the assertion that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner in the select list declared on 09.02.2009, on the basis of the medical examination held on 11.04.2009, was result of the arbitrary exercise.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the delay on the part of the petitioner, he may not be made to suffer, as he belongs to a remote area and was not aware about the legal nuances. The submission is that appointment is required to be given to the petitioner by holding that Colour vision blindness cannot be treated as a disability for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner.
7. From the prayers made in the writ petition, pertinent is to note that the relief has been sought for quashing and setting aside the unfit certificate issued by the Medical board dated 11.04.2009 and further prayer has been made to appoint the petitioner as Armed/Unarmed police constable with all consequential benefits and back wages by issuing appointment letter forthwith.
8. The learned Single judge while dismissing the writ petition has noted that the petitioner is challenging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not appointing him taking plea of the judgment of the coordinate bench on the identical issue passed vide order dated 16.10.2019 passed in Special civil application No. 12147 of 2019. It is also noted by the learned Single judge that even the Coordinate bench of this Court had rejected such claims Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined after filling of the writ petition in the year 2019. It was opined that a litigant has to approach this Court within a reasonable time to assert his legal rights and long passage of time sans justification disentitling the petitioner to claim similar relief. There is a reference of the decision of the Division bench order dated 06.08.2020 passed in Civil application No. 1643 of 2020 in LPA No. 397 of 2020 in paragraph No. '9' of the judgment impugned, which reads as under :-
"9. The aforesaid judgment was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench and the Division Bench vide order dated 06.08.2020 passed in Civil Application No.1643 of 2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No.397 of 2020 has observed thus:-
"...Admittedly the appellant, who was writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after delay of 9 years with no valid explanation resulting into dismissal of the petition. Merely because some other similarly situate candidates had approached this Court and their matter was decided finally in their favour in the year 2018, the petitioner thought it appropriate to take advantage of the said judgment, cannot be a good ground to condone laches of 8-9 years. The Supreme Court is very clear on the proposition that a petition cannot be entertained under extraordinary equitable and discretionary jurisdiction where the litigant has approached the Court after considerable delay. In the present case, the delay is of 8 to 9 years. We accordingly do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."
9. The learned Single judge has, thus, opined in paragraph No. '10' as under :-
"10. Thus, in view of the observations made by the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition seeking appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak and seeking quashing and setting aside the unfitness certificate dated 11.04.2009 cannot be entertained after a delay of almost more than 11 years."
10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined in similar facts and circumstances of the present case, Special Civil Application No. 1023 of 2021 has been dismissed by the learned Single judge vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2021, against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 397 of 2020 was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2020, on the ground of delay. However, on a challenge before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 9199 of 2024, to the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Division bench confirming the judgment and order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Single judge, while granting leave, the appeal was allowed with the following order and directions :-
"1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 21.06.2022, thereby dismissing the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide which the appellant has challenged the order dated 11.01.2012. By the said order, the appellant was denied appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak on the ground that he suffered from colour-blindness.
3. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that although the appellant was denied the appointment in the year 2012, he had waited for eight long years for this opportunity and, as a result, was rightly denied the appointment.
4. We find that in other matter(s) where the parties had approached the Court with some delay, the High of Gujarat recognized colour-blindness is not a disability for disqualification and granted relief in favour of such persons.
5. We have perused several orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat and which are being upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, wherein even after some delay, the High Court has interfered and allowed the petition(s) of persons who are suffering from colour-blindness.
6. We, therefore, allow the appeal. The impugned order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court and order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court are quashed and set aside. The appellant (Desai Jitendra Jivanbhai) is directed to be appointed as 'Lok Rakshak'. The appointment order would be issued forthwith.
7. The appellant shall be granted deemed date from the date on which the other candidates selected from the said selection Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined process were appointed.
8. Though the appellant would be entitled to continuity in service for all the purposes, including the retiral benefits and fixation of salary and seniority, he would not be entitled for the wages for the period between the deemed date and date of actual joining of services.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. "
11. It may further pertinent to note that a learned Single judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 01.04.2024 has allowed the writ petitions filed in the year 2021, 2023 and 2024, wherein challenge was to the rejection of the claims of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak/Police Constable pursuant to the recruitment vide advertisement of the year 2009, more particularly, on the ground that the petitioners were suffering from disability of Colour vision blindness. While allowing the writ petitions, it was directed by the learned Single judge that the petitioners are entitled for appointment from the date when they would have ordinarily been appointed on being selected and whereas the period from the date of appointment till the date of actual joining, would not be treated as a period in actual service except for retiral benefits and fixation of seniority.
12. In the similar fashion, the judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 has been passed by the learned Single judge in allowing two Special Civil Applications namely Special civil application No. 17684 of 2022 and Special civil application No. 5642 of 2024, where the challenge was made to the rejection of candidature of the petitioners therein in the selection held in the year 2010. A recent decision rendered by the learned Single judge dated 13.02.2025 in a set of writ petitions being Special civil application No. 19954 of 2022 and other similar petitions, has also Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined been placed before us.
13. Taking note of the above, we may record that in the SLP(C) No. 9199 of 2024, where the challenge was to the order of the learned Single judge dated 03.09.2021 affirmed by the Division bench vide judgment and order dated 21.06.2022, the petitioners had approached this Court after a substantial delay of eight years. The submission, thus, is that delay may not come in the way of the appellant herein who has approached this Court on the ground that the Colour vision blindness cannot be a reason to reject the candidature of the petitioner, when the petitioner was kept in the select list declared on 09.02.2009, wherein 4275 candidates were selected subject to their medical examination. The contention is that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner as having been declared unfit by the medical board on the ground of Colour vision blindness cannot be sustained.
14. Taking note of the above, following the decision of the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 22.10.2024, as noted hereinabove, we allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 05.08.2021 of the learned Single judge holding that the petitioner shall be granted appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak/Constable Armed/Unarmed as per the select list declared on 09.02.2009, if he was otherwise fit for appointment, except for the medical opinion of having been suffering from Colour vision blindness. The appointment to the petitioner shall be given from the deemed date, i.e. the date on which the candidates kept in the select list dated 09.02.2009 had been given appointment. Though the appellant/original petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service for all purposes including the retiral benefits and fixation of salary and seniority, but would not Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/975/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined be entitled to actual wages for the period between the deemed date of appointment and till the date of actual joining.
15. The joining of the appellant/petitioner shall be ensured within a period of three weeks' from the date of submission of the copy of this order before the competent authority. It goes without saying that the joining of the petitioner, as directed above, would be subject to the fulfillment of all other eligibility criterias and completion of the required formalities, as we have given liberty only on the ground that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the medical opinion of being unfit due to Colour vision blindness.
16. With the above, the present appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:29:18 IST 2025