Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Homemaker’s Services Cannot Be Ignored in Compensation Due to Age  ||  Kerala High Court Directs Photos and Videos of Illegal Vehicle Modifications in Accident Reports  ||  Madras HC: Property Acquired by Catholic Priests Belongs to the Religious Society  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Marital Disability Cannot Be Used to Avoid Maintenance to Wife and Child  ||  Allahabad HC: Religious Freedom Does Not Confer a Right to a Specific Plot for Cemetery  ||  Allahabad HC: Dissatisfaction With Police Probe Alone Cannot Prove Wilful Neglect under SC/ST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Teachers Cannot Face Criminal Action for Trivial Classroom Discipline Measures  ||  Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits    

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

MANU/DE/3796/2018

Service

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.

Tags : GUIDELINES   TERMINATION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved