Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1225 (JHR)

Surendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-13

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court to direct the respondents to issue appointment letters to them and accept their joining on the post of constable pursuant to their selection under Advertisement No. 01 of 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are holding all requisite qualifications in the matters of chest measurement, height and were otherwise also found to be medically fit. It is submitted that they have also qualified in the written test as well. Their names figured in the merit list published by the respondents vide Annexure-3. Thereafter being successful in all such physical and medical test they were asked to appear at their allotted district for facing medical test vide Annexure-4 series in respect of these 12 petitioners. It is submitted that thereafter the respondents have refused to issue appointment letters to them as also to allow them to discharge duties for the said post now by taking a ground that these persons were suffering from defective colour vision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a perusal of Annexure-5 which are enumerated categories of diseases which are required to be verified during medical test would show that the disability of impaired colour vision does not occur in the 14 such diseases shown at annexure-5. It is submitted that these petitioners have been picked out of total number of 290 candidates to deny them appointment on the alleged ground of having suffered from defective colour vision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such a decision is arbitrary as well as discriminatory. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. in CWP(T) No. 4521 of 2008 reported in 2010(3) SLR 76. He submits that in the said case also the learned Single Judge observed that the persons suffering from colour blindness may not be totally unfit to discharge other routine duties where their colour blindness may not impair the discharge of their duties. Such matters should be viewed sympathetically since the petitioners had already been selected after passing the rigors of selection process and they could be deployed in any other wing where the colour blindness will not be hindrance in the discharge of duties. Such matters should be viewed sympathetically since the petitioners had already been selected after passing the rigors of selection process and they could be deployed in any other wing where the colour blindness will not be hindrance in the discharge of duties. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Das and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2011(4) JCR 281 (Jhr.) In the said case the person appointed in CRPF had worked for more than three years at different places of posting without any complaint of defective colour vision and others who were found to be colour blind were treated as confirmed employees and continued in service. In such circumstances, it is submitted that learned Single Bench of this Court in the said case quashed the decision to terminate the services of such petitioners and allowed them to continue in service with all consequential benefit. It is submitted that the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the petitioner should not be made to suffer from any disability which may not impair their discharge of their duties as constable otherwise. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that these petitioners of course had succeeded in the physical and written test and their names had occurred in the merit list issued by the respondents, but no appointment letters were issued to them. Instead successful candidates were asked to appear for further medical test before the Competent Authority in respective districts where they were alloted. It is submitted that call letters of the petitioners on such selection vide Annexure-4 series itself indicates that it was conditional in nature. If they were found unfit on any physical medical test or for failing to produce the necessary certificates, their candidatures could be cancelled. Learned counsel for the respondents further draws attention of this Court towards the Annexures to their counter affidavit i.e. Annexure-E, F and G respectively. It is stated that out of 217 candidates, who had appeared before Medical Board and after examination of such candidates, 19 candidates were found to be having defective colour vision. The same is apparent from Annexure-E dated 20.08.2012 addressed to the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh. It is stated that out of 217 candidates, who had appeared before Medical Board and after examination of such candidates, 19 candidates were found to be having defective colour vision. The same is apparent from Annexure-E dated 20.08.2012 addressed to the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh. After such examination and on their being found that these 19 persons were suffering from defective colour vision, they were further sent for examination by a higher expert body i.e. by the RIMS vide Annexure-F dated 29.08.2012. Learned counsel for the respondents-State by referring Annexure-G dated 31.08.2012 submits that out of these 19 persons who were examined for defective colour vision at RIMS, Ranchi, 7 were found to have normal colour vision and rest were found to have abnormal colour vision. These 12 persons are the present writ petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the duties performed by the constable are such that they are required to have proper vision including colour vision. They have to be engaged in different capacities depending upon the need of operation not only in law and order maintenance but also in naxal areas and other difficult operations. They can also be deployed elsewhere where defective colour vision may be a serious handicap in their functioning. It is submitted that right from inception, these petitioner can not claim to be posted throughout their career at such places of posting where no function relating to proper colour vision can be said to be required. It is further submitted that in the matter of police force the requirement of proper vision including colour vision is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be dispensed with even on sympathetic ground. Learned counsel for the respondents had distinguished the aforesaid judgment on the facts of the case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on records. From the facts which are borne on record and have been indicated in above paragraphs, it is not in dispute that these petitioners were selected and their names occurred in the merit list prepared by the respondents after qualifying in the physical and written test under Advertisement No. 01 of 2010 issued for appointment of constable in various districts of the State of Jharkhand. However, Annexure-4 series shows that these persons were called to appear in medical test and for production of necessary certificates in the absence of which or on failure to qualify in medical test their candidatures could be cancelled. It further appears from perusal of annexure- E, F and G respectively that those 217 candidates who had appeared in Medical Board, 19 out of them including 12 present petitioners were found to be suffering from defective colour vision. In order to further verify the correctness of the expert evaluation of their colour vision, these petitioners and others were sent to further medical examination before the Director, RIMS, Ranchi, which is a reputed institution of the State. On examination of those 19 persons, 7 of them were found to be having normal colour vision and rest 12 i.e. the present petitioners found to be having abnormal colour vision. In these circumstances, the respondents have rightly denied appointment to these petitioners as requirement of proper colour vision and proper eye sight is necessary for discharging the onerous duties of constable in an uniform force like the police force. The judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kr. Das & Others (Supra) is distinguishable on the facts as in the said case the incumbent was allowed to work for more than three years at different places of posting and thereafter their services were terminated on grounds of suffering from colour blindness, while rest were confirmed and allowed to continue in service. However, so far as other judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Hosiar Singh (Supra) is concerned, this Court is, however, of the view of that the defect of colour blindness is something which goes to the root of ability of a constable to perform various demanding duties in an uniform force like police force where a lot of onerous operation would be required to be undertaken throughout entire career of such constable. As such he cannot claim a right to be posted on such imagined places of posting where the requirement of having proper colour vision is not necessary. In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners despite the fact that they are suffering from defective colour vision. 6. In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners despite the fact that they are suffering from defective colour vision. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.