Delhi High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 August, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: July 21, 2022
Pronounced on: August 25, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 2425/2021 & CM APPL.7064/2021 & 28324/2021
RANJEET KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Ms. Shilpa
G. Mittal, Mr. Prabhat Kumar &
Mr. Kshitiz Chauhan, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Leena Tuteja, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
JUDGMENT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking
quashing of orders dated 24.07.2020 and 16.12.2020; vide which he has
been terminated from service.
2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to respondents inviting
applications, he applied for the post of Constable in Central Armed
Police Force (CAPF) and after being successful in the written
examination; he appeared for medical examination before the Medical
Board at FTR, HQR, SSB, Patna, wherein he was found unfit on the
ground of "Hydrosol Rt Testis". However, the petitioner was re-
examined by the Appellate Medical Board and was found fit for service
and was accordingly selected in the recruitment process and
provisionally appointed to the post of Constable/GD vide letter No.E-
32023/ES/Appoint letter/ Joint Recruit/ Constable-2011/ 2017-5963
dated 30.05.2014.
3. Further averred by the petitioner that he received a Show Cause
Notice dated 03.12.2016 alleging that he had suppressed the fact of
having „Defective Colour Vision‟ when he appeared for medical
examination in Jaipur and got Shape-1 certificate. In his reply to the
aforesaid Show Cause Notice, petitioner stated that according his medical
examination of the year 2015-16, he was in Shape-I category; that the
report of Annual Medical Examination of the year 2015 was never
supplied to him; and only by virtue of this Notice, he has been informed
that he is suffering from „Defective Colour Vision‟. Thereafter,
respondents vide order dated 24.10.2016 cancelled the confirmation of
his probation period. In furtherance to Show Cause Notice dated
03.12.2016, respondents vide order dated 02.02.2017 imposed penalty of
deducing 03 days‟ salary and he was sent for medical examination on
29.09.2018, wherein the Medical Board placed him in Shape-2 category
for a period of two years. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the Eye
Board (RME) IG, Medical, Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharoda Kala and
he was put under Shape-5 category.
4. Respondents thereafter issued another Show Cause Notice dated
09.03.2020 asking petitioner as to why his services be not terminated
under Rule 25 sub rule (2) and Rule 26 sub rule (4) of the CISF Rules,
2001 for not furnishing correct information. Petitioner was also informed
that his service condition is hit by Circular dated 27.02.2013 issued by
Ministry of Home Affairs vide F.No.1-45024/1/2008-Pers.II, which
stipulates that any person suffering from defective colour vision or
colour blindness will not be recruited. In reply to the aforesaid Show
Cause Notice, the petitioner vide reply dated 25.04.2020 stated he has
never violated any CISF Rules and the above said Circular dated
27.02.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs is not applicable to
him, as he was recruited prior to coming of the aforesaid Rule in force.
However, the respondents vide order dated 24.07.2020 terminated
services of petitioner in terms of provision of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 25 of
the Central Industrial Security Force Rule, 2001.
5. Being aggrieved by his termination, petitioner filed an appeal
before the competent authority, which was disposed of by respondent
No.3 vide order dated 16.12.2020 by treating it as a representation. The
afore-noted orders dated 24.07.2020 and 16.12.2020 are challenged in
the present petition.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of petitioner submitted that by virtue of Circular No. I-45024/2/2013-
Pers-II dated 28.05.2013, Ministry of Home Affairs has issued the
guidelines for recruitment of CAPF which stipulated that the services of
person recruited after 27.02.2013 and suffering from defective colour
vision or colour blindness would be terminated. However, these
guidelines would come into effect in prospective manner and since the
petitioner was recruited in the year 2011; and the respondents first
arbitrarily increased his probation period and thereafter, cancelled the
confirmation of the probation period of petitioner and clandestinely
removed him from service. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be
quashed. Learned counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in
Abhilash Kumar Vs. Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11923 to
submit that the recruitments made prior to aforesaid circular dated
28.05.2013 would remain valid and such person shall be shifted/ posted
to such a position where the public safety is not involved. It was urged
that the respondents have terminated the petitioner from service by
treating the date of appointment as the date of recruitment, whereas the
term „recruitment‟ and „appointment‟ are not similar. In support of above
submission, reliance was placed upon decision in Basant Lal Malhotra
Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1969 PH 178.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner next submitted that the
departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of
CISF Rule, 2001 against his termination has been treated as
representation and arbitrarily decided by respondent No.3, without even
affording an opportunity of hearing. It was also submitted that petitioner
never suffered from any medical condition or disease and he was given
offer for appointment by respondent No.3 after he was declared
medically fit by the Medical Board after thorough examination. Learned
counsel submitted that the medical standards prescribed in the
recruitment brochure requires the candidate to possess high colour vision,
which was duly tested during the medical examination and petitioner was
found fit. It is claimed that in the year 2015-16, petitioner was in Shape-I
category and respondent No.3 has failed to appreciate that the medical
reports and annual confidential report suggest incongruity in the reports
of the doctor. Also, that respondent No.3 has committed an error in
treating the petitioner to be under probation, though he has been working
for the last more than 6 years, especially when his probation period was
never formally extended and even as per recruitment rules the period
cannot be extended more than twice the original probation period.
8. In support of above submissions, reliance was placed upon
decision of this Court in Sudesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2011
SCC OnLine Del 1449 wherein after considering the long service, this
Court had directed the respondent therein to not invalidate petitioner
therein on account of colour blindness. Reliance was also placed upon
decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 316; Veerpal Singh Vs. Secretary, Ministry
of Defence (2013) 8 SCC 83 and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Manjeet
Singh (2015 12 SCC 275 in support of petitioner‟s case to submit that
there exists a presumption in favour of the military personnel as
disability attributable to service, if at the time of acceptance of service,
the person was found medically fit.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents on the
other hand submitted that the petitioner was issued provisional offer of
Appointment for CISF Group Commandant, CISF Group HQRS Patna
(Bihar) letter No. E- 32023/EZ/Appointment letter /joint recruitment/
Constable- 2011/14/5963 dated 30.05.2014 for the post of Constable/GD
wherein at SI.No.02 (iv & v) it was clearly mentioned that the appointing
authority may discharge him from service at any time during the period
of probation. The petitioner unconditionally accepted his term of
selection and after completion of his basic training, he was transferred to
CISF 8th Batallion Jaipur (Raj) on 14.06.2015, wherein in the year 2015
during his medical examination, the medical officer declared the
petitioner as (SHAPE-2S1H1A1P1E2 T-12) for "DEFECTIVE
COLOUR VISION".
10. According to respondents, the petitioner suppressed the fact that he
was already placed under Low Medical Category i.e. "Defective Colour
Vision" in Annual Medical Examination (AME) -2015, however, at the
time of his examination in the year 2016 before the Medical officer,
Community Health Centre, Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan, managed SHAPE-I
certificate. Accordingly, on the basis of Shape-I certificate, the probation
period of petitioner was considered to have been completed and he was
confirmed in the rank of Const./GD w.e.f. 12.07.2016.
11. The respondents have averred that the Community Health Centre
Amer, Jaipur (Rajasthan) was unaware with the AME Certificate of the
petitioner as SHAPE-2 category i.e. S1H1A1P1E2 for "DEFECTIVE
COLOUR VISION" for the year 2015, so the AME report issued as
SHAPE-I by the Community Health Centre Amer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
was cancelled by the Medical Authority of Primary Health Center, Jaipur
vide their letter No. 2016-17/613 dated 07.10.2016. Accordingly, vide
letter dated 24.10.2016, petitioner‟s completion of probation and
confirmation was cancelled. Vide Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2016,
petitioner was called upon to submit his reply, which was considered and
found to be unsatisfactory and thereby rejected vide order dated
02.02.2017 with the punishment to "pay fine equivalent to 03 days pay".
12. Learned counsel for respondents next submitted that thereafter the
Standing Medical Board conducted petitioner‟s medical examination on
29.09.2018 at CISF Hospital, Mahipalpur wherein he has been
categorized as Low Medical Category i.e. S1H1A1P1E2 for a period of
two years. Thereafter, petitioner‟s case was again taken up by the
Director, Medical Board, CISF HQrs New Delhi and his medical
examination was held on 06.02.2020 at Eye Board IG, Medical
Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi and he was
declared as SHAPE-V.
13. The petitioner was accordingly issued a Show Cause Notice dated
09.03.2020 by the competent authority to show cause as to why his
services be not terminated/ dismissed and stated that if the petitioner
wishes to make any written representation against the Show Cause
Notice, he may do so. It is averred that petitioner submitted his reply
dated 23.06.2020, which was found unsatisfactory and respondent vide
order dated 24.07.2020, terminated his services. Against the order of
termination, petitioner preferred an appeal dated 31.08.2020, which was
considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated
16.12.2020. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
empathically submitted that there is no merit in the present petition and it
deserves to be dismissed.
14. In rebuttal, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
respondents No.3 & 4 in purported exercise of power under sub rule (2)
of Rule 25 of CISF Rule, 2001 has arbitrarily issued orders dated
16.12.2020 and 24.07.2020 and dismissed the petitioner from service by
wrongly relying upon the Circular issued by Ministry of Home Affairs
vide F No.1-45024/1/2008-Pers.II dated 27.02.2013.
15. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
material placed before this Court, we find that petitioner was
provisionally appointed to the post of Constable in CAPF on 30.05.2014
and after undergoing basic training at KRTC, Mundli, he was transferred
to CISF 8th Reserve Battalion, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Vide order bearing No.
S.E.-30013/12/CISF/8th Battalian/Dasta/Par./2016-11348 24.10.2016,
petitioner‟s probation was cancelled holding as under:-
" OFFICE OF HEAD COMMANDANT
Central Industrial Security Force
(Ministry of Home Affairs)
CISF 8th Reserved Battalian
Post-Amer, Jaipur Rajasthan
S.E.-30013/12/CISF/ 8th Battalian/Dasta/Par./2016-
11348
Date:
24/10/2016
ORDER
Subject: Cancellation of completed probation period.
It has been ordered that medical certificate of Shape-I
category issued by the Doctor of General Hospital, Amer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan to CISF No. 140501317 Constable/GD/
Ranjeet Kumar posted in this Battalian that Senior Medical
Officer Community Health Centre, Amer, Jaipur, has been
cancelled by the Head Medical Officer, Community Health
Centre, Amer, Jaipur vide letter No. ORG./2016-17/613 dated
07.10.2016.
02. Therefore, on the basis of Sr. No. 8 of Battalian service
order part-l Sr. 48/2016 dated 17.08.2016 certifying
completion of probation period to CISF No. 140501317
Constable GD Ranjeet Kumar is cancelled due to
abovementioned medical certificate of Shape-I category of the
year 2016.
XXXX "
16. Thereafter, on 03.12.2016, petitioner was served with Show Cause
Notice, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
" OFFICE OF HEAD COMMANDANT
Central Industrial Security Force
(Ministry of Home Affairs)
CISF 8th Reserved Battalian
Post-Amer, Jaipur Rajasthan
B-15014/CISF/8th BattalianjA.B.(J)/Part/N-37/ Ranjeet
2016 -12491
Date: 03/12/2016
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
Disciplinary action against CISF No. 140501317
Constable /GD Ranjeet Kumar, 8th Battalian Reserved
Force Jaipur (Rajasthan) has been proposed. The detail
of
proposed charges for the action is mentioned herein.
CHARGE
CISF No. 140501317 Constable/GD
Ranjeet Kumar was declared Shape-2
[SlHIA1P1E2 (T-12) for defective colour
vision by the Medical Officers in the annual
medical examination conducted in the year
2015. Defence Personnel has got himself
medical examined and got a Shape-l
certificate in the annual medical
examination 2016 without disclosing the
report of year 2015. Due to the above said
act of the defence personnel he is liable for
negligence, indiscipline and willful
disobedience of the order passed by the
Senior Officers. Therefore, the charge.
02. By this CISF No. 140501317
Constable/GD Ranjeet Kumar is granted 10
days time to present his defence by written
mode.
XXXX "
17. The respondents in Final Order bearing No. B-15014/ CISF/8th
Battalion/ A.B.(J)/Part/N-37/Ranjeet/2017-922 dated 02.02.2017 refuted
the claims made by the petitioner in his reply and held as under:-
"03. Therefore I the undersigned, after perusing the show
cause notice and the defence presented by the defence
personnel vide written application dated 27,12.2016, finds
that the defence personnel was declared Shape-2
(S1H1A1P1E2 (T-12) for defective colour vision while he
was posted in 8th Batallion Jaipur by the CISF Hospital
arid since the test of colour vision is done in front of
Doctor and the defence personnel therefore, both the
persons are aware of the test result. Defence personnel
has on its own Shape-1 certificate by getting himself tested
in the year 2016 without disclosing the result of
"S1H1A1P1E2 (T12) for defective colour vision" of the
year 2015 to the relevant doctor in the year 2016 and
further presented that certificate to the department.
Therefore the defence personnel is found guilty for the
letter No. (1249) dated: 03.122016. Defence personnel is
liable for the appropriate punishment for the above act but
on seeing the service and the future of the accused defence
personnel, I the undersigned after adopting humble attitude
exercise power under Rule 32 sub-rule 1 and Rule 34 of
Part-X of CISF Rule-2001 ordered that C1SF No.
140501317 Constable/ GD Ranjeet Kumar should be
penalized by detecting the salary of 3 days."
18. Pertinently, the basis for issuance of aforesaid termination order
dated 24.10.2016; show cause notice dated 03.12.2016 and final order
dated 02.02.2017 is the AME -2015 report dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure
R-2), wherein petitioner has been declared Shape-II S1H1A1P1E2 for
Defective Colour Vision. Also, the Review Medical Board on 29.09.2018
has opined as under:-
"In view of the above specialist opinion,
investigation, medical examination and instruction
issued vide directorate medical/CISF message
No.M-20015 (SMB-2)/CISF/Med. Dir/Saket/2016-
810 dated 16.08.2016, the board recommends him
to place in LMC S1HlA1PlE2 (P) wef 29..09.2018
for two years."
19. Thereafter, pursuant to respondent‟s letter dated 24.12.2019,
petitioner appeared before the Eye Board (RMED) IG, Medical,
Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jhaorda Kalan on 06.02.2020, who opined as
under:-
"A case of Defective colour vision
O/E Defective Colur Vision CP -IV (Four)"
20. The respondents thereafter vide Show Cause Notice dated
09.03.2020 called upon the petitioner to make a representation within 30
days as to why in terms of Circular baring No. I- 45024/ 1/2013-Pers-I,
dated 28.05.2013 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, his services may
not be terminated.
21. Against the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioner is
claiming to have filed an appeal dated 23.06.2020, which according to
him was wrongly treated as a Representation. A perusal thereof reveals
that it holds the subject as "Submissions of representation against the
show cause notice" and was in reply to Show Cause Notice dated
09.03.2020. According to respondents, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal under CISF Rules, 2001 which could not have been treated as a
representation. So, the contention of petitioner that it was not treated as
an appeal, cannot be accepted. The said representation of petitioner was
found unsatisfactory by the respondents and same was rejected and
petitioner was terminated from service by Termination Order bearing No.
E-42099/CISF/DMRC(D)/ Dasta /2020-13669 dated 24.07.2020.
22. Relevantly, respondents have heavily relied upon Circular baring
No. I- 45024/ 1/2013-Pers-I, dated 28.05.2013 issued by Ministry of
Home Affairs for termination of petitioner. The aforesaid circular reads
as under:-
" Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Per-II Desk
****
Subject: New Policy Guidelines on recruitment/
retention in respect of Central Armed
Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assam rifles
(ARs) personnel having defective colour
vision including colour blindness -
regarding
Reference BSFs UO No.29/40 (WO)/2013-stt/10399 dated
18.04.2013 on the above mentioned subject seeking clarification
whether the personnel recruited between the date 18.05.2012 to
27.02.2013 and at later stage detected to be suffering from colour
blindness are also be boarded out or will be retained in
service.
2. The matter has been considered in this Ministry, it is
clarified that, personnel recruited earlier to 27.02.2013 would not
be boarded out. But any person recruited thereafter (i.e after
27.2.2013) if found colour blind even after recruitment, shall
promptly be boarded out of service.
Sd/
(R.P Sati)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel-23092343
DG, BSF : (Shri Dharmendra Pareek, DIG (Estt)
________________________________________
MHA UO No.I-45024/1/2013-Pers-II dated 28th May
2013"
23. Petitioner has pleaded that the aforesaid Circular dated 28.05.2013
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs is not applicable to his case, as
the said circular came into force in 2013 whereas he was recruited in the
year 2011. On the other hand, respondents have pleaded that the said
circular stipulates that those who have been recruited in CISF after
27.02.2013, if found colour blind, even after recruitment, shall be
boarded out of service.
24. Petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of this Court in
Abhilash Kumar (Supra) to submit that the recruitments made prior to
aforesaid circular dated 28.05.2013 would remain valid and such person
shall be shifted/ posted to such a position where the public safety is not
involved. In the said decision, a Division Bench of this Court in a writ
preferred by 16 petitioners, who pursuant to an advertisement in 2015
and after going through selection process in the year 2016, were offered
the appointment in the year 2017, had assailed their termination, had
observed upon the Circular dated 28.05.2013 issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs as under:-
"12. The aforesaid Guidelines leave no manner of doubt
that any person who has a defective vision or is colour
blind, is ineligible for recruitment in the CAPF or Assam
Rifles. In fact, if any person is wrongly recruited despite
having the aforesaid defects, he is to be promptly removed
from service as soon as the defect is noticed and
appropriate disciplinary action for major penalty is
required to be initiated against the Doctor who had
declared him „fit‟.
13. The aforesaid Guidelines are not under challenge
before us and therefore, on this ground alone, the
challenge of the petitioners is liable to fail as it has neither
been urged before us that the petitioners are not suffering
from Colour Blindness, nor it has been contended that the
aforesaid Guidelines are inapplicable to them.
XXXXXX
15. Per contra, the facts of the present case clearly show
that the petitioners were recruited after a condition had
been introduced in the Policy Guidelines dated 27.02.2013
specifically prohibiting the recruitment of persons
suffering from Colour Blindness or defective vision. Even
otherwise, we are of the view that once the respondents
have specifically prescribed a set of medical standards for
recruitment, it is not open to the Court to tinker with the
said standards or to hold that the action of the
respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners,
who admittedly did not meet the criteria prescribed in the
Guidelines, is in any manner illegal."
25. In Abhilash Kumar (Supra), the petitioners were appointed after
coming into force the Circular dated 28.05.2013 issued by the Ministry
of Home Affairs and had not challenged the said circular. However, the
Court had in unequivocal terms held that it is not open for the court to
tinker with the medical standards for recruitment. Hence, reliance upon
decision in Abhilash Kumar (Supra) is of no assistance to the case of
petitioner.
26. The petitioner has also relied upon decision in Basant Lal
Malhotra (Supra) to submit that the respondent has terminated the
petitioner therein from service by treating the date of appointment as the
date of recruitment, whereas the term „recruitment‟ and „appointment‟
are not similar. In Basant Lal Malhotra (Supra), the Division Bench of
Punjab and Haryana decided the writ petition preferred by a retired
District and Sessions Judge for refixing his pension under Punjab Service
Civil Rules, wherein the period of service rendered and date of
recruitment were under consideration. The Division Bench gave
dissenting views. Justice P.D.Sharma referred the matter to the larger
Bench, whereas Justice P.C.Jain held as under:-
"11. After giving my thoughtful consideration to all the
relevant provisions of the subject, I am led to an
irresistible conclusion that the terms recruitment and
„appointment are not synonymous and connote different
meanings. The term „recruitment‟ connotes and clearly
signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval
for appointment and not actual appointment or posting in
service while appointment means an actual act of posting
a person to a particular office. In this view of the matter,
the word recruited existing in rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume II, does not mean actual
appointment and the petitioner should be deemed to have
been recruited on the 26th of March, 1936."
27. In Basant Lal Malhotra (Supra), the said case was related to
Punjab Service Civil Rules, whereas the present case relates to Circular
dated 28.05.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs relates to
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assam rifles (ARs), where-
under, the petitioner was terminated from service during his probation
period and his confirmation was recalled in view of his medical
condition. The observations made in Para-11 of Basant Lal Malhotra
(Supra) make it abundantly clear that recruitment is a condition
precedent to appointment. In the present case, services of petitioner were
terminated while he was under probation, which is a condition precedent
to his appointment. Hence, this case is also of no help to the case of
petitioner.
28. In Sudesh Kumar (Supra), the petitioner had joined the services in
the year 2003 on the post of Constables and the learned Single Judge of
this Court had elaboratively dealt the aspect of colour blindness.
However, at the relevant time policy Circular dated 28.05.2013 issued by
the Ministry of Home Affairs was not in force and so, this case is of no
help to the case of petitioner.
29. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon decisions in
Dharamvir Singh (Supra); Veerpal Singh (Supra) and Union of India
(Supra).
30. In Dharamvir Singh (Supra), the petitioner, who was a Sepoy in
Army in the year 2005 and was discharged from service on account of
20% disability, had sought pension. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the facts
and circumstances of the said case had allowed the petition while
observing that a member of armed forces is presumed to be of sound and
mental condition upon entering in service if there is no entry or record to
the contrary. However, has also observed that in the event of his
discharge from service on medical grounds, the onus to proof is on the
employer.
31. In Veerpal Singh (Supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had dealt
with a case where the appellant, who was enrolled in Army, was
discharged from service and his claim for pension was turned down for
the reason he was found suffering from „schizophrenic reaction‟, which
is not attributable to military service. The Supreme Court had after
analyzing of his medical reports held that the courts are extremely loath
in interfering with the opinion of the medical experts but the Tribunal
ought to have referred the case to the Review Medical Board or
reassessing the medical condition of petitioner therein and directed for
same.
32. In Union of India (Supra), the Supreme Court had subscribed the
views proclaimed in Dharambir Singh (Supra) and Rajbir Singh
(Supra).
33. There is no dispute to the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the afore-noted cases. There is no dispute a personnel of armed
forces is presumed to be of sound and mental condition at the time of his
joining the service and if he is discharged from service on account of
disability, the onus is upon the employer to prove it. In the present case,
there are different medical reports on record refuting the claims of
petitioner.
34. It is not the case of petitioner that he was not given the opportunity
to prove his ability. On the other hand, petitioner was examined by the
Review Medical Board on 29.09.2018, which noted that "the board
recommends him to place in LMC S1H1A1P1E2 (P) wef 29.09.2018.
Even thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Eye Board on
06.02.2020, which opined that it is "a case of Defective colour vision
O/E Defective Colur Vision CP-IV".
35. The petitioner was recruited to the post of Constable/GD vide
appointment letter dated 30.05.2014. It is pertinent to mention here that
as per the material on record, the petitioner was in Shape-2 category i.e.
"defective colour vision" as per the Annual Medial Examination of the
year 2015. Then he appeared before AME-2016 at Jaipur, Rajasthan and
did not disclose Shape-2 of AME-2015. Consequently, got Shape-I
category. Thereafter, his probation was confirmed on 17.08.2016. But
after it came to the notice of respondents that the Shape-1 category was
wrongly issued to the petitioner, vide order dated 07.10.2016, Shape-1
category was cancelled and consequently, vide letter dated 24.10.2016,
petitioner‟s completion of probation and confirmation was also
cancelled. Thereafter, the Standing Medical Board conducted petitioner‟s
medical examination on 29.09.2018 at CISF Hospital, Mahipalpur,
wherein he was categorized as Low Medical Category i.e. Shape-2 for a
period of two years. The Director, Medical Board, CISF (HQs), New
Delhi again took up the petitioner‟s case and examined him on
06.02.2020 at Eye Board IG, Medical Composite Hospital, CRPF,
Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi and declared him in Shape-5. Thus, he
continued on probation.
36. There is no dispute to the position that by Circular dated
28.05.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it has been clarified
that the "personnel recruited earlier to 27.02.2013, would not be
boarded out. But any person recruited thereafter (i.e. after 27.2.2013) if
found colour blind even after recruitment, shall promptly be boarded out
of service". It is also not disputed that in the year 2011, petitioner had
applied for recruitment on post of Constable; the petitioner was fully
examined by Medical Officer on 22.07.2011; and provisionally appointed
to the said post on 30.05.2014. That is to say, his appointment is pursuant
to coming into force the Circular dated 28.05.2013 by the Ministry of
Home Affairs and his appointment conditions shall be governed
thereunder.
37. In view of the aforesaid factual position of this case, we find that
the orders dated 16.12.2020 and 24.07.2020 do not call for any
interference by this Court.
38. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications are disposed of as infructuous.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(SAURABH BANERJEE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2022
r
