Del. HC: Severity of Offence Can’t Disentitle Foreigner to Get Parole for Filing SLP  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Compound Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act at Revision Stage Without Complainant’s Consent  ||  Bom. HC: There Should be Some Accountability Fixed on Courts in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration  ||  Tel. HC: Employee Can’t be Denied Promotion on Pretext of Pendency Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  All. HC: State Government has no Power to Cancel the NOC Granted by PCI  ||  SC: Can’t Allow Revision Petition u/s 115 CPC Against Trail Court Order Rejecting Review of Decree  ||  Mad. HC: Record Statements of Witnesses u/s 161 CrPC Using Electronic Means atleast in Serious Crime  ||  Delhi HC to UGC: Ensure Strict Compliance of UGC Act, 1956, with Regard to Specification of Degree  ||  Mad. HC: Notice Needn’t be Served to Victim in HCP by Accused Following Preventive Detention  ||  SC to Centre/States: Ensure the Effective Implementation of HIV Act, 2017    

Abhilash Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (16 Oct 2018)

Once a set of medical standards for recruitment has been prescribed, it is not open to Court to tinker with said standards



The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioners assailing their termination from the CISF vide orders. The Petitioners have also assailed the order vide which the appeal against their termination has been rejected by the Respondent no. 2/Inspector General (IG), CISF. The only issue which needs to be determined is as to whether the Petitioners having once been appointed, can their services be subsequently terminated on the ground of their suffering from Colour Blindness, while they were still on probation.

It is an undisputed position that, all the Petitioners are suffering from defective colour vision. Policy Guidelines dated 27th February, 2013, leave no manner of doubt that, any person who has a defective vision or is colour blind, is ineligible for recruitment in the CAPF or Assam Rifles. In fact, if any person is wrongly recruited despite having the aforesaid defects, he is to be promptly removed from service as soon as the defect is noticed and appropriate disciplinary action for major penalty is required to be initiated against the Doctor who had declared him 'fit'.

The aforesaid Guidelines are not under challenge and therefore, on this ground alone, the challenge of the Petitioners is liable to fail as it has neither been urged that, the Petitioners are not suffering from Colour Blindness, nor it has been contended that the aforesaid Guidelines are inapplicable to them.

The facts of the present case clearly show that, the Petitioners were recruited after a condition had been introduced in the Policy Guidelines specifically prohibiting the recruitment of persons suffering from Colour Blindness or defective vision. Even otherwise, once the Respondents have specifically prescribed a set of medical standards for recruitment, it is not open to the Court to tinker with the said standards or to hold that the action of the Respondents in terminating the services of the Petitioners, who admittedly did not meet the criteria prescribed in the Guidelines, is in any manner illegal. Petition dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved