STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PIYUSH PATIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dtd. 19/3/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13173/2019.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents-original petitioners had participated in selection process for the post of Constable in State Police Services. The recruitment was meant only for the candidates of Tribal Sub Plan area. The petitioners were subjected to written test and once they cleared, they were subjected to physical efficiency test. They were, thereafter, selected and sent for medical test, which was performed by the Medical Board constituted by the State authorities. Once the petitioners cleared the physical efficiency test and medical test also, they were recruited along with other candidates and under order dtd. 27/12/2018 were sent for training at BSF Training Center, Udhampur (Jammu and Kashmir). While under training, they were once again subjected to physical test. During such testing, the petitioners failed the required standards on the grounds of low night vision or colour blindness etc. In essence, all the petitioners suffered from one or other similar deficiencies. Without issuing any notice, the petitioners' services were terminated in August, 2019. The petitioners immediately approached the High Court and learned Single Judge stayed the termination orders. Eventually, the present writ petition and other connected petitions were heard and disposed of by the common impugned judgment. The learned Judge referred to recruitment advertisement in which, it was stated that the persons with low night vision and colour blindness would not be qualified. However, learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the State authorities had already examined the physical fitness of the petitioners through the Medical Board at one stage and thereafter, recruited the petitioners in service. Once the recruitment was over, the petitioners could not have been subjected to fresh physical examination. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, it was a wholly fortuitous circumstance that the petitioners were sent for training at BSF Camp, where such physical examination was conducted again. If other candidates were not sent to the same training center, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, such physical shortcomings would have gone undetected. The learned Single Judge was, however, conscious of the fact that in the police force, persons with low night vision or colour blindness as per recruitment rules were not qualified. The learned Judge, therefore, referred to Sec. 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2016") and while setting aside the termination orders, permitted the State Government to engage the petitioners in any other service. It is this judgment that the State Government has challenged in present appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. What emerges as undisputed position is that (i) all the petitioners were subjected to full scale selection process comprising of written test followed by physical efficiency test; (ii) once the petitioners cleared both and were found meritorious enough to be included in the select list, they were subjected to physical examination through medical board constituted by the State Government; (iii) the Medical Board also found the petitioners physically fit enough to discharge duties as Constables; (iv) it was after such detailed process that the petitioners were offered appointment. They were appointed and sent for in-service training; (v) during such in-service training, they were subjected to physical examination again when it was noticed that they suffered from low night vision or colour blindness; (vi) on this ground, the services of the petitioners were terminated without affording them any opportunity of hearing.