Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 665 (PNJ)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana

2012-05-03

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.: - Petitioners, in response to an advertisement issued in the year 2008 for recruitment of 5456 posts of General Duty Constables, applied for the said posts. Petitioner No.1 belongs to the BC-B category and petitioner No.2 belongs to BC-A category. They were called for physical measurement and thereafter, the physical efficiency test which they cleared and secured good marks. They were called for interview on 11.8.2011 and 25.8.2011 respectively. Result of the tests were declared on 31.1.2012 and the name of the petitioners found mentioned in the selection list. They were called for interview on 22.3.2012 and 27.3.2012 respectively. Petitioners were not found fit in the medical examination and had 6x6 vision but were unable to identify the primary colours on the small and large apertures. They were both referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak for undertaking the test of colour blindness. They were examined by the Board of Doctors on 6.4.2012 and were declared unfit for the job of Constable on the ground of ‘colour blindness’. 2. This decision of the Board has been challenged by the petitioners through the present writ petition on the ground that as per the mandate of Rule 12.16 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), the petitioners fulfil the requirement mentioned thereunder and the test of colour blindness has not been specified therein. The conducting of an additional test which is in violation of the statutory rules cannot be said to be in consonance with law as no instructions/directions can be beyond the statutory rules which can be made the basis for declaring a candidate unfit for job. Further plea has been raised that in similar matters relating to the Constables, this Court in CWP No.13338 of 2008 titled as Satish Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 29.04.2009 (Annexure P-3) had not accepted the stand of the respondents and allowed the writ petition where a candidate was declared unfit for the job of a Constable (executive) being colour blind. Reliance has similarly been placed on another judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.14795 of 2009 titled as Nasib vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 4.3.2010 where again rejection of candidature of a person for the post of Constable (executive) was held to be illegal on the ground that he was unfit because of colour blindness. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the impugned medical reports dated 6.4.2012 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) deserve to be set aside and the present writ petition be allowed with the directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of General Duty Constables. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has argued the case on similar lines. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records of the case. For decision of the case in hand, reference to the Rules would be beneficial. Rule 12.17 of the Rules reads as follows:- “Rule 12.17 for Haryana 12.17 Recruits Medical Examination :- Candidates who are finally recommended for appointment as constable shall be got medically examined by the Civil Surgeon. A certificate, in the prescribed form (0.64), signed by the Civil Surgeon personally, is an essential qualification for enrolment. The examination by the Civil Surgeon will be conducted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Health Department and he will test the eye sight, speech and hearing of the candidate, his freedom from defects, organic or contagious disease or any other defect or tendency likely to render him unfit, and his age. The conditions of police service make it necessary that the medical examination of candidates should be strict. Candidates shall be rejected for any disease or defect which is likely to render them unfit for the active duties of a police officer.” 5. A perusal of the above would show that a candidate who is recommended for appointment as Constable is mandated to be medically examined by the Civil Surgeon and to obtain a certificate, as prescribed in Form 10.64 to be signed personally by the Civil Surgeon and this has been held to be an essential qualification for enrolment. The medical examination of a candidate is to be conducted by a Civil Surgeon in accordance with the instructions issued by the Health Department. The medical examination of a candidate is to be conducted by a Civil Surgeon in accordance with the instructions issued by the Health Department. The Civil Surgeon is mandated to test the eye-sight, speech and hearing of the candidate apart from his freedom from defects, organic or contagious disease or any other defect or tendency likely to render him unfit and his age. Medical Examination is directed to be strict and a candidate shall be rejected for any disease or defect which is likely to render him unfit for active duties of a police officer. The duty is, thus, cast upon the Civil Surgeon to conduct medical examination of the candidate, as per the instructions of the Health Department. 6. The instructions dealing with the standard of vision have been provided in letter No.5706-5HBIII-59/26093 dated 29.7.1959 issued by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Health and Local Government Department and colour perception is one of the areas which is required to be seen and tested which reads as follows:- “Colour perception should be graded into a higher and a lower grade depending upon the size of the aperture in the lantern on the colour board in the table below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. N. Grade Higher Lower ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Distance between the lamp and candidates 16 feet 16 feet 2 Size of aperture 0.1 to 3 mm. 13 mm. 3 Time of exposure 5 sec. 5 sec. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For services concerned with the safety of the public e.g. Pilots, drivers, guards etc., the higher grade of colour vision is essential but for others the lower grade standards of colour vision should be considered sufficient. The same standard of colour vision should be applicable in respect of all engineering personnel in whose case colour perception is considered essential irrespective of the fact whether their duties involve field work or not. Satisfactory colour vision constitutes recognition with ease and without hesitation of signal red, signal green and white colours. The use of Ishihara’s plate shown in good light and a suitable lantern like Edrige Green’s shall be considered quite dependable for testing colour vision. While either of the two tests may ordinarily be considered sufficient, in respect of the Services concerned with road, rail and Air traffic, it is essential to carry out the Lantern tests. The use of Ishihara’s plate shown in good light and a suitable lantern like Edrige Green’s shall be considered quite dependable for testing colour vision. While either of the two tests may ordinarily be considered sufficient, in respect of the Services concerned with road, rail and Air traffic, it is essential to carry out the Lantern tests. In doubtful cases, where a candidate fails to qualify when tested by only one of the two tests, both the testes should be employed.” 7. This would indicate that for services concerned with the safety of the public, the higher grade of colour vision is essential and it cannot be by any imagination perceived that the services and responsibilities of a General Duty Constable would not be concerned with the safety of the public. 8. A General Duty Constable is required to perform varied functions which could be that of a Guard, Traffic Constable, patrolling, investigation, maintaining law and order etc. All these duties are to be performed by a constable which is concerned with safety of public for which higher grade of colour vision is required. It is common knowledge that while performing duties as a Constable, the precise colour would make a great difference in the qualitative analysis and reporting on a particular issue which would include with regard to information of the commission of a crime and detection thereof. It could be the colour of a vehicle in which the culprits may escape, the colour of the dress worn and the surroundings, which is essentiality especially when the evidence is to be led in the Court in cases where investigation is being conducted by such police officers. Similarly, a police officer performing guard duty has to be well conversant with the colours and to identify the same with precision. The nature of duties to be performed by General Duty Constables, thus, makes it essential for him to see the colours and identify the same clearly and correctly. There can be an occasion where similar type of dress is worn by his colleagues and the person who has committed a crime but of slight different shade. The nature of duties to be performed by General Duty Constables, thus, makes it essential for him to see the colours and identify the same clearly and correctly. There can be an occasion where similar type of dress is worn by his colleagues and the person who has committed a crime but of slight different shade. If he is unable to identify the colour and if weapons are to be used, in such a situation, which could be an encounter also, it would have a drastic result if he shoots his own colleague as he is unable to distinguish between the colours and would render him unfit to differentiate between defender and offender. Thus, the requirement of a person having a higher grade colour vision perception is an essential part for performing the duties of a General Duty Constable which cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or violative or unrelated with the nature of job to be performed by a General Duty Constable. This defect is very serious in nature keeping in view the duties assigned to personnel of law enforcing agencies. 9. Rule 12.17 of the Rules puts responsibility upon the Civil Surgeon to assess the physical and medical fitness of a candidate for active duties of a police officer. There can be various grounds on which the Civil Surgeon may come to a conclusion that the candidate is not fit for enrolment as a police officer which may include eye-sight, speech, hearing of a candidate and has also to see that the candidate is free from defects, organic or contagious diseases etc. or any other defect or tendency which in the opinion of the Civil Surgeon is likely to render him unfit for performing the active duties of a police officer. He is required to properly examine from all angels the medical fitness of a candidate and when in his assessment the candidate is fit for the active duties of a police officer, he is required to personally sign Form 10.64 declaring him medically fit by issuing such certificate. Reliance by the counsel for the petitioner on Appendix 12.16 of the Rules is a misconception as the said appendix is not applicable to the State of Haryana and in fact is applicable to State of Punjab. Reliance by the counsel for the petitioner on Appendix 12.16 of the Rules is a misconception as the said appendix is not applicable to the State of Haryana and in fact is applicable to State of Punjab. After the amendment of Rule 12.16 by the State of Haryana, Appendix 12.16 is not applicable to the candidates who applied for appointment in the State of Haryana in the Police Department. 10. Rule 12.17 of the Rules, thus, leaves it to the satisfaction of the Civil Surgeon to determine whether a candidate is fit for duties of a particular branch of service in Police Department in which he is desirous of being enrolled. The Court is not expected to interfere with the decision of expert doctors while exercising writ jurisdiction. 11. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Satya Parkash Vasist (supra), Satish Kumar (supra) and Nasib (supra) would not be applicable to the case in hand as those were based upon different statutory rules and Rule 12.17 was not taken into consideration by the Court. In any case, the appointment in those cases were to the Police Department which dealt with the executive branch whereas the present case is relating to the selection and appointment to the post of a General Duty Constable. 12. The petitioner in the present case is seeking appointment to the post of General Duty Constable which, as is apparent from the nature of duties to be performed by the General Duty Constables, makes it essential for a candidate to possess higher grade of colour vision especially when the services performed by General Duty Constables are concerned with the safety of the public. 13. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.