JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral): 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 be colour blind, are not eligible for being appointed. It is no doubt true that the appellants/writ petitioners had qualified the recruitment process at almost all stages but at the stage of medical examination it was discovered that they are partially colourblind. 3. Learned Single Judge has taken a view that the advertisement condition clearly stated that the colour blindness, in any form (partial or complete) disentitled the candidates for appointment. 4. Mr. Dhulia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has raised two contentions; firstly, according to him, under the U.P. Police Service 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. 5. Learned Single Judge while taking 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 Service, 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 Superintendents 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. 6. 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. 6. 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 because we cannot lose sight of the fact that the recruitment was for general duty constables and general duty constables can be asked to perform several duties, including driving of vehicles 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. 7. It is in this background that the advertisement specifically prohibited such persons from being selected who suffered from colour blindness. The expression “Colour Blindnes” would include partial colour blindness as well. 8. In the circumstances we find that no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has not been violated because the petitioners cannot be permitted to complain that they have been discriminated against by respondents or that the respondents have acted in any arbitrary manner. The condition in the advertisement relating to “colour blindness” is a reasonable restriction and has a close nexus to the object sought to be achieved, namely, securing fully medically fit candidates for appointment as constables. 9. Learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner in dismissing the writ petitions. We do not take any contrary view. The Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs.