NEERAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original applicants having lost before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal") have approached this Court by filing the instant petition and have challenged order, dated 7th September, 2010 passed by it. The short issue raised in the petition is whether a person suffering from colour blindness could be appointed to the post of a Constable. After their selection for the post of Constables, they were medically examined and found unfit on account of colour blindness. It is undisputed that the petitioners were selected for appointment as Constables in the Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB). They were not elected as constables who were to discharge duties on executive side namely clerical work. The Tribunal rejected their claim by placing reliance on Rule 12.16 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the Rules') which is duly adopted by the Chandigarh Administration. The Tribunal in paras 11 and 12 held as under :

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and find that the instant petition is bereft of merit. The controversy has to be examined with reference to Rule 12.16 of the Rules which reads thus :

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid rules show that Civil Surgeon is under obligation to conduct medical examination of every recruit before his enrollment. He will test the eye sight, speech and hearing of the recruit. If there is a tendency which is likely to render him unfit or any other defect found during medical examination then such a candidate may have to be rejected being medically unfit. The rule further states that the conditions of the police services makes it necessary that the medical examination should be very strict. Once the rules provide, for a strict medical examination then any defect of eye sight affecting the duties have to be recorded. Such a defect of eye sight may have to be considered as medical unfitness. The question has arisen before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the context of Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity 'the 1995 Act'). In respect of colour blindness their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 30 of the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India versus Devendra Kumar Pant and others, 2009 14 SCC 546 as under :