Gujarat High Court
Anadabhai Ravtabhai Chaudhary vs Director General Of Police, ... on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/2344/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2344 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ANADABHAI RAVTABHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GUJARAT STATE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR N P PANDYA(11241) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. HEMANG S TRIVEDI(10045) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 08/09/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi
learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on
C/SCA/2344/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2022
behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the
respective parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing.
3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the prayer is made that a
direction be issued to the respondents to
consider the petitioner as having been appointed
as Lok Rakshak on and from 16.05.2017 instead
of 12.10.2018.
4. The prayer is made in the context of the
following facts.
5. On being selected as Lok Rakshak, an
appointment order was issued to the petitioner
on 16.05.2017. On 17.05.2017, the petitioner
C/SCA/2344/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2022
was certified to be suffering from defective
colour vision. He was therefore not permitted to
join. On his case being referred to the
Ophthalmology Board, by a communication dated
10.09.2018, the petitioner was declared fit to
discharge his duties as unarmed Lok Rakshak.
He was therefore permitted to resume his duties
with effect from 12.10.2018.
6. The question therefore is whether the petitioner
is entitled to treat the period from his initial date
of appointment from 16.05.2017 to 12.10.2018 as
services rendered for all purposes.
7. Mr.Soaham Joshi learned AGP would rely on an
affidavit filed in the petition and submit that the
merit of the petitioners has not suffered
inasmuch as he continues to be shown at merit
no.1412 in SEBC category.
C/SCA/2344/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2022
8. Be that as it may, this Court in several matters,
one of them being Special Civil Application
No.3739 of 2018 while considering the
disqualification of defective colour vision held
that such a disqualification cannot dis-entitle Lok
Rakshak for appointments and therefore gave the
following directions:
"6. The above observations and directions in
Rajdeepsinh Takhatsinh Zala (supra) would
apply to the cases of the present petitioner.
Therefore, on the lines of the direction of
the Division Bench in Rajdeepsinh
Takhatsinh Zala (supra), the present
petition is allowed and disposed of by
issuing following order and directions.
(i) The respondents are directed to
consider the case of all the petitioner
for appointment to the post of Unarmed
Police Constable ignoring his colour
blindness, and if nothing adverse is
found against him, he shall be
appointed on the post forthwith;
(ii) Since considerable time has elapsed
since the recruitment as made, it is left
open to the discretion of the
respondent authorities to appoint the
petitioner to any other Class-III post
having equal pay if the post of Lok
C/SCA/2344/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2022
Rakshak/Unarmed Police Constable is
not available;
(iii) It is further directed that if the
petitioner is not assigned active duty of
the post in question, he may be
assigned table work as an alternative;
(iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled
to back wages in respect of the
intervening period as having not
actually worked;
(v) It is made clear that the promotion
already granted to the persons junior to
the petitioner in the merit-list on
account of late appointment of the
petitioner shall not be disturbed as a
result of the relief being granted to the
petitioner by these directions;
(vi) Subject to these limitations
however, the entire period commencing
from the date when the petitioner
ought to have been ordinarily
appointed, would be treated as a part
of their continuous service for all other
service purpose including the
retirement benefits and fixation of their
seniority;
(vii) All other observations and
directions made by the Division Bench
in Rajdeepsinh Takhatsinh Zala (supra)
shall apply to the present petitioner;
6.1 Necessary orders shall be passed by the
C/SCA/2344/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2022
respondent authorities within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this
Court.
7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct service is permitted."
9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The
entire period commencing from the period when
the petitioner ought to have been permitted to
join i.e. from 16.05.2017 till the actual date of
12.10.2018 would be treated as part of
continuous service for all service purposes
including retirement benefits and fixation of
seniority. Orders accordingly be passed within a
period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct
service is permitted.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
