ORDER : Dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellants writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') vide impugned order dated 01.12.2014 gave cause to the petitioners to knock the door of this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders passed in the case of 'Anil Kumar Das' and 'Debabrata Shit' which were binding on the learned Single Judge, have been ignored by the learned Single Judge on erroneous grounds. Referring to decisions in “Mahadeo Lal Kanodia v. The Administrator-General of West Bengal” AIR 1960 SC 936 and in “Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain” (2011) 2 SCC 94 , the learned counsel contended that it was not open to the learned Single Judge to ignore/overlook the orders passed in the case of 'Anil Kumar Das' and 'Debabrata Shit'. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI submits that the case of the petitioners are clearly distinguishable on facts. Insofar as, Anil Kumar Das, Debabrata Shit and others are concerned, their cases were considered in the light of notification dated 31.07.2002 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 5. Briefly stated, during the recruitment exercise from December, 2002 to February, 2003 held at GC CRPF, Jamshedpur, the petitioners along with others participated. During the recruitment process physical and medical examinations were conducted by the Selection Committee and again at the time of joining the petitioners were medically examined and they were found fit. The petitioner no.1 was enlisted in CRPF on 27.05.2003 and the petitioner no. 2 was enlisted on 31.03.2003. The petitioners were sent for training and after they successfully completed the training, they were posted at Doda, J & K. It appears that the Central Bureau of Investigation vide letter dated 28.09.2004 forwarded the list of 66 candidates raising suspicion over their selection and accordingly, those candidates were reexamined by a Board of Medical Officers on 21.09.2005 at Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jammu. The petitioners were declared medically unfit and accordingly, their services were terminated by giving one month's salary in terms of sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide letter dated 19.01.2006. 6. The petitioners were declared medically unfit and accordingly, their services were terminated by giving one month's salary in terms of sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide letter dated 19.01.2006. 6. It is not in dispute that in “Anil Kumar Das and others v. Union of India and others”, reported in 2011 (4) JLJR 215 , the Writ Court quashed the order of termination and the applicants therein namely, Anil Kumar Das, Ravi Shankar and Prayag Das have been taken into services by the respondents. Again, the order of termination passed against Debabrata Shit was quashed vide order dated 02.03.2012 in W.P.(S) No. 2916 of 2006. The said applicant has also been reemployed by the respondents. The stand taken before the learned Single Judge in the present proceeding was that the orders passed in 'Anil Kumar Das' case and 'Debabrata Shit' case are not attracted in the case of the petitioners for the reason that those applicants were reinstated in the light of notification dated 31.07.2012 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 7. The list of 66 candidates which was produced by the respondents before the Writ Court discloses the reason for medical unfitness of all those 66 candidates. A perusal of the defects pointed out against Anil Kumar Das discloses that he is suffering from ‘poor distant vision’. Debabrata Shit was also suffering from ‘poor distant vision’. It was only Prayag Das who had colour vision defect however, he had several other serious defects such as, depressed funnel, chest deformity and varicose vein in both legs. Admittedly, the notification dated 31.07.2002 does not apply in cases of ‘poor distant vision’. No doubt, the petitioners are also not suffering from colour vision defect however, once it is found that the other persons who were not suffering from colour blindness have been reappointed, the petitioners' case cannot be rejected merely stating that their case is different from the case of 'Anil Kumar Das' and 'Debabrata Shit'. 8. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that even though the petitioners have been wrongly appointed, in view of the fact that the petitioners have been found medically unfit, they cannot be taken in service, is liable to be rejected. 8. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that even though the petitioners have been wrongly appointed, in view of the fact that the petitioners have been found medically unfit, they cannot be taken in service, is liable to be rejected. The petitioners are not claiming benefit of an illegal order passed by the respondents rather, they are seeking parity in the light of orders passed by this Court. The order passed by this Court in 'Anil Kumar Das' and 'Debabrata Shit' cases are not illegal orders. Those orders were not challenged by the respondents and after the respondents implemented those orders, they cannot deny similar benefit to others by merely asserting that the petitioners have been declared medically unfit. Of course, the respondents considering the nature of duty performed by the petitioners and the physical infirmity found during the medical examination can take a conscious decision not to reemploy them however, at the threshold their claim cannot be brushed aside. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, we find that the impugned order dated 01.12.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7893 of 2006 suffers from serious infirmity in law and accordingly, it is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and order dated 19.01.2006 as well as the appellate order dated 12.05.2006 are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 1 Inspector General of Police is directed to examine the case of the petitioners, afresh and pass a reasoned order. It is made clear that by virtue of this order the petitioners would not claim automatic reinstatement in service. 10. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Appeal allowed.