Virendra Giri Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7737 MP

                                                         1
                            IN   THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                            ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 5784 of 2023

                      BETWEEN:-
                      1.    VIRENDRA GIRI GOSWAMI S/O SHRI GIRI GOSWAMI,
                            AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                            R/O VILLAGE JHALSHIR GOND,TAHSIL BABAI, DISTT.
                            NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.    SHRIKANT SHROTI S/O SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR SHROTI,
                            AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                            R/O VILLAGE BAMANWADA TEHSIL WADI DISTRICT
                            RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.    ASHUTOSH DWIVEDI S/O RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI, AGED
                            ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                            VILLAGE SANGAKHEDA KHURD TAHSIL BABAI DISTRICT
                            HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                      (BY SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                      AND
                      1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
                            SECRETARY HEME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
                            BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.    DIRECTOR   GENERAL    OF HOME     GUARD BHOPAL
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.    DIVISIONAL    COMMANDANT HOMEGUARD      BHOPAL
                            DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.    DISTRICT        COMMANDANT HOME        GUARD
                            NARMADAPURAM DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.    SENIOR STAFF OFFICER HOME        GUARD JABALPUR
                            DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      6.    ANKIT SOLANKI S/O KAILASH SOLANKI THROUGH THE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 5/13/2023
3:09:26 PM
                                                                 2
                           DISTRICT COMMANDANT             UJJAIN    DISTRICT     UJJAIN
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                           This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

By the instant petition, petitioners are challenging the order Annexure-P-10, whereby respondents have denied them to be appointed as a Home Guard Sainik only on the ground that the Divisional Medical Board during the physical examination has found them colour-blind.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that they were appointed as a Home Guard

Sainik and were deputed in Sinhasthat Ujjain in the year 2016 and after that event they have been removed. Although, Chief Minister made a declaration that all those Homeguards engaged in the Sinhasthat event will be given appointment as a Homeguard Sainik and they will be taken back in service on a fixed salary of Rs.20,700/-. He submits that District Medical Board cleared the petitioners but Divisional Medical Board declared them unfit on the ground that they were found colour-blind. He further submits that colour-blind is not a disqualification to be appointed on the post of Home Guard Sainik. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Gujrat High Court & Supreme Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 8707/2016 (Shaikh Tahirhusain Mohmmed Hanif Vs. Lokrakshak (Constable) Recruitment Board) and in (Union of India Vs. Satya Prakash Vasisht) reported in 1994 SCC suppl (2) 52, in which it is observed that colour-blind is not disqualification prescribed, therefore, on that ground candidates cannot be rejected.

Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of remitting the matter to the respondents to take appropriate decision in this matter in the light of the judgment passed by the Gujrat High Court and Supreme Court viz a viz the requirement in the rules Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 5/13/2023 3:09:26 PM

prescribing colour-blind is a disqualification. If there is any provision under which colour-blinds cannot be appointed, respondents may specify that provision and pass appropriate order thereon. If there is no such disqualification prescribed, the candidature of the petitioners may be considered.

The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Petition is disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 5/13/2023 3:09:26 PM