Amitav Kumar Gupta, J - (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. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were found physically and mentally fit and as per Annexure -4 to the writ petition, the successful candidates were directed to appear with their original certificates before the office of Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure -5 of the writ petition and submitted that impaired colour vision is not mentioned as the category of disease for medical examination and Annexure -5 is the Order no. 877 dated 29.10.2004 issued by the Officer of Director General of Police (Administration.), Government of Jharkhand. He has also referred to Annexure -1 of this Appeal and submitted that in the said advertisement the requisite qualification of physical test has been prescribed and it is nowhere mentioned regarding the impaired colour vision. It is contended that the case of the appellants is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., in CWP (T) NO. 4520 and 4521 of 2008, reported in, (2010) 3 SLR 76. It is urged that in the said case, the court had observed that the persons suffering from colour blindness may not be totally unfit to discharge other routine duties whereby the colour blindness may not impair in discharge of the duties. Learned counsel relying on the decision in the case of Anil Kumar Das and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in : 2011(4) JCR 281 (Jhr.) has submitted that in that case, the petitioners were found to be suffering from certain defective vision and colour blindness and were declared to be medically unfit but, they were directed to continue in service. In support of his argument learned counsel has also relied on the decision in the case of Nand Kumar Narayan Rao Ghodmare vrs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in : 1995(6) SCC 720 and also on the decision in the case of Narendra Kumar Chandla vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in : 1994(4) SCC 460.
(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.;