- (1.) V. K. Gupta, C. J. By this common judgment, all the three appeals are being disposed of together.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions because the advertisement condition clearly stated that such candidates, who in the course of medical examination were found to be colour blind, are not eligible for be ing appointed. It is no doubt true that the appellants/writ petitioners had quali fied the recruitment process at almost all stages but at the stage of medical ex amination it was discovered that they are partially colourblind. Learned Single Judge has taken a view that the advertisement condition clearly stated that the colour blindness, in any form (partial or com plete) disentitled the candidates for ap pointment. Mr. Dhulia, learned Senior Ad vocate appearing for the appellants has raised two contentions; firstly, accord ing to him, under the U. P. Police Serv ice Rules, 1942 (1942 Rules, for short), Clause 6 (E) of Appendix E of the said 1942 Rules clearly shows that inability to distinguish principal colours would not be regarded as a cause for rejection but the fact will be noted in the proceedings and the candidates would be informed.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge while tak ing note of this submission has clearly held that 1942 Rules do not apply with respect to the recruitment of constables. We ourselves also find that 1942 Rules are applicable only to U. P. Police Serv ice, which has been defined as the State Service Class II as per Rule 2 and Rule 3 (1 ). Rule 4 specifically lays down that the strength of the Service shall be as given in Appendix A and in Appendix A undoubtedly it is stated that the Service shall comprise of Additional Superin tendents of Police in two different grades of pay. It therefore clearly means that 1942 Rules are not applicable nor can these be attracted to the Recruitment or appointment of Constables. Mr. Dhulia, in support of his second contention relied upon the medical reports of the appellants/writ petitioners wherein it has been opined that appellants were suffering from partial colour blindness, therefore, whereas they were unfit for vehicle driving and the performance of traffic duties, but are fit for other duties. Even though we do not dispute the aforesaid opinion of the medical Board, we cannot adopt the principle of severalty in the present case be cause we cannot lose sight of the fact that the recruitment was for general duty constables and general duty con stables can be asked to perform sev eral duties, including driving of vehi cles as well as performance of traffic related functions. Which constable at what point of time would be asked to perform what nature of duties cannot be contemplated or comprehended.;