LAWS(JHAR)-2014-8-6

SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 07, 2014
SURENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.11.2013 of W.P. (S) NO. 6322/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the appellants/petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) THE averments of the appellants/writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ is that in pursuance to the Advertisement no. 1/2010 the appellants applied for the post of Constables; that the appellants had requisite qualification in terms of the Advertisement; that they were issued admit cards whereafter they appeared for the written test and the physical test and were declared successful; that selection letters were issued to them directing them to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh on 25.06.2012 along with the required certificates; that the appellants along with required certificates appeared before the office of Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh on 25.06.2012 and on verification of the correctness of the certificates they were directed to appear for medical test on 05.07.2012; that the appellants appeared for medical test but they were not issued the appointment letters and their joining was not accepted by the authorities, thereafter, the appellants filed their representations and met the authorities where they came to know that on account of defective colour vision they were not allowed to join their duties. Thus, being aggrieved, the appellants/petitioners filed the aforesaid writ which was dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and the facts of those cases, the learned counsel has contended that in the present case the action of the authorities in not allowing the appellants to join the post on the ground of impaired colour vision is arbitrary and illegal; that the other persons were not subjected to such tests hence the action of the authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory and this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the impugned judgment is not in accordance with the facts and law and is fit to be set aside.