Allahabad HC Detains Woman IO till 4 PM, Fines her Rs.5K for not Seizing POCSO Accused’s Mobile  ||  Allahabad HC Questions Fake Victim Age Certificates in POCSO Cases; UP Government Drafts Guidelines  ||  Gujarat HC: ‘Self-Negligence’ Bars Compensation to Heirs of Driver Killed at Unmanned Crossing  ||  UK Court of Appeal Dismisses India's Bid to Challenge Arbitration over Andhra Bauxite Project  ||  CCPA Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Penalty on Britannia Over Misleading ‘100% Whole Wheat Bread’ Claim  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds SEM Notice Asking Neha Bora to Sign Peace Bond Beyond Mere Hearsay  ||  Allahabad High Court: Rape Victims Cannot Be Denied Compensation for Lack of Medical Report  ||  Kerala High Court Quashes Guideline Restricting Production of Arrested Persons After 5 PM  ||  Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal of Two in Electric Fence Death of 11-Year-Old  ||  MP High Court Allows Tree Felling for Indore Metro, Orders Phased Cutting under Expert Watch    

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