SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court to direct the respondents to issue appointment letters to them and accept their joining on the post of constable pursuant to their selection under Advertisement No. 01 of 2010.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are holding all requisite qualifications in the matters of chest measurement, height and were otherwise also found to be medically fit. It is submitted that they have also qualified in the written test as well. Their names figured in the merit list published by the respondents vide Annexure-3. Thereafter being successful in all such physical and medical test they were asked to appear at their alloted district for facing medical test vide Annexure-4 series in respect of these 12 petitioners. It is submitted that thereafter the respondents have refused to issue appointment letters to them as also to allow them to discharge duties for the said post now by taking a ground that these persons were suffering from defective colour vision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a perusal of Annexure-5 which are enumerated categories of diseases which are required to be verified during medical test would show that the disability of impaired colour vision does not occur in the 14 such diseases shown at annexure-5. It is submitted that these petitioners have been picked out of total number of 290 candidates to deny them appointment on the alleged ground of having suffered from defective colour vision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such a decision is arbitrary as well as discriminatory. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2010 3 SLR 76 in CWP(T) No. 4521 of 2008. He submits that in the said case also the learned Single Judge observed that the persons suffering from colour blindness may not be totally unfit to discharge other routine duties where their colour blindness may not impair the discharge of their duties. Such matters should be viewed sympathetically since the petitioners had already been selected after passing the rigors of selection process and they could be deployed in any other wing where the colour blindness will not be hindrance in the discharge of duties. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Das and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2011 4 JCR 281 In the said case the person appointed in CRPF had worked for more than three years at different places of posting without any complaint of defective colour vision and others who were found to be colour blind were treated as confirmed employees and continued in service. In such circumstances, it is submitted that learned Single Bench of this Court in the said case quashed the decision to terminate the services of such petitioners and allowed them to continue in service with all consequential benefit. It is submitted that the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the petitioner should not be made to suffer from any disability which may not impair their discharge of their duties as constable otherwise.