ORDER : In the facts of the case and having regard to the consent and request of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition was taken up for final consideration. 1.1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Ishaan Joshi waives service of Rule. 1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr.B.M. Mangukiya for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. What is prayed in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to direct the respondent authorities to issue order of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Lok Rakshak and to grant the consequential benefits. 3. The facts in the background are that the petitioner who belongs to Socially & Educationally Backward Class, applied pursuant to advertisement published in the year 2015 for the recruitment in Class-III in Gujarat Police Service. The petitioner was issued call letter for physical examination, which was cleared by the petitioner on 03rd February, 2015. The petitioner was thereafter called for verification of documents. On 20th June, 2015 the verification took place. 3.1 It appears that the Resident Medical Officer of Sir T General Hospital, Bhavnagar forwarded medical opinion in respect of the petitioner to the Chairman, Board of Referees, M.N.J. Institute of Ophthalmology, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. It appears that the Resident Medical Officer had treated the petitioner as unfit for the post of Police Constable as the petitioner suffered from defective colour vision as per certificate dated 01st July, 2015. As the appointment to the petitioner was refused on the said ground of defective colour vision, petitioner made an application dated 28th February, 2020 under the Right to Information Act. The information received thereupon showed the petitioner to be placed at Serial No.28 in the waiting list. 3.2 It appears that another public advertisement for the post of Lok Rakshak was published on 01st July, 2016. Petitioner applied for the post and came to be issued call letter to appear in the written examination, which was held on 23rd October, 2016. The petitioner cleared the said examination, whereafter call letter for physical test was sent to the petitioner, which test was conducted on 07th February, 2017. The petitioner fared successful therein also. In the waiting list thereafter issued, petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No.12. The petitioner cleared the said examination, whereafter call letter for physical test was sent to the petitioner, which test was conducted on 07th February, 2017. The petitioner fared successful therein also. In the waiting list thereafter issued, petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No.12. 3.3 It is stated that the Chief District Medical Officer, Nadiad forwarded communication dated 11th January, 2019 to the Chairman, Board of Referees, Ahmedabad, referring the case of the petitioner. The Board of Referees issued certificate dated 20th March, 2019 stating that the petitioner was unfit to discharge the services as Constable, Class-III. As per the certificate dated 03rd April, 2019 issued thereafter by the District Medical Officer, Nadiad, the petitioner was shown to be unfit as Constable on the ground that he suffered from colour blindness. The petitioner was denied appointment. 3.4 The crux of the controversy is thus that the petitioner is denied appointment to the post of Armed Police Constable-Lok Rakshak on the ground that the petitioner suffers from colour blindness. It is the case and contention of the petitioner that his colour blindness cannot attach any disability for the post. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, though medical check-up of all the candidates is required to be undertaken but the candidate cannot be denied appointment on the ground other than mentioned and that the colour blindness is the ground held to be not acceptable to attach any disability for the appointment to the post. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Shaikh Tahirhusain Mohmmed Hanif v. Lokrakshak (Constable) Recruitment Board being Special Civil Application No.8707 of 2016 decided on 26th December, 2016, as well as another decision in Dineshbhai Govindbhai Kathechiya v. State of Gujarat through Secretary being Special Civil Application No.7638 of 2013 decided as per the judgment dated 26th April, 2018. Those petitions raised similar controversy as to whether the candidates who suffered from colour blindness could be subjected to debility on such ground for being appointed and whether they could be denied appointment to the post of Police Constables. 4.1 It was further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that in respect of the instant recruitment itself, some of the candidates were declared unfit on the same ground of colour blindness. 4.1 It was further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that in respect of the instant recruitment itself, some of the candidates were declared unfit on the same ground of colour blindness. They had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.15431 of 2017, Special Civil Application No.15835 of 2017, Special Civil Application No.18536 of 2017, Special Civil Application No.20938 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.20889 of 2017 and group of petitions. By common order dated 26th August, 2018, co-ordinate Bench allowed the said petitions and directed the authorities to issue order of appointment and further granted to those petitioners the continuity of service as well as back wages. It was next submitted that in the meantime, against one of the orders, State filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1136 of 2018 wherein the Division Bench passing common order dated 30th June, 2020, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, when confronted with the above decisions, ratio thereof and the position of law emerging therefrom, was entirely at his receiving end. 5.1 In Dineshbhai Govindbhai Kathechiya (supra), the Court elaborately considered the relevant provisions of Gujarat Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 2002 as well as the appendixes applicable. The relevant parts of the discussion from the judgment which would squarely cover the present controversy, may be extracted. 5.2 The Court noticed the only ground in the controversy in paragraph 7 as under, “.... the sole ground for which the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Lok Rakshak is denied emanates from the certificate of physical fitness issued by the Civil Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Initially, the petitioners were issued the certificate that they were fit for the table work since, they are suffering from colour blindness. Unquestionably, as reflected in the communication dated 29.08.2012, the petitioners are referred to for medical examination under the Bombay Civil Services Rules Chapter-3 and for obtaining the certificate as per Appendix-7. Initially, the petitioners were issued the certificate that they were fit for the table work since, they are suffering from colour blindness. Unquestionably, as reflected in the communication dated 29.08.2012, the petitioners are referred to for medical examination under the Bombay Civil Services Rules Chapter-3 and for obtaining the certificate as per Appendix-7. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in fact the aforesaid rules are repealed by the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 2000, however, the corresponding appendix of the Bombay Civil Services Rules is Rule 11 and the relevant Appendix-3 of Annexure-B of the Gujarat Civil Services (General condition of Services), Rules 2002 are pari materia to the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Chapter-3, as stated in the letter dated 29.08.2012. The Appendix-A of Appendix-3 under Rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services General Conditions of Rules, 2002 also laid down the similar conditions as to the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Chapter-3. At this stage, it would be gainful to extract the provisions Appendix-III of Rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Condition of Services), Rules, 2002.” 5.3 The relevant Rule 11 was reproduced along with Schedule B as well as Appendix-III which was relevant in deciding the controversy as under, “Relevant extract of Rule 11 thereof is reproduced as below: RULE 11: Certificate of physical fitness a prerequisite for substantive appointment or continuance in service (1) Every Government employee shall produce a medical certificate of health specified in Appendix III either before he is appointed substantively to a permanent post in Government service or before he completes six months service from the date of his appointment, whichever is earlier. (2) x x x x Note 1.-Rules for the medical examination of the candidates as to their physical fitness for Government service have been embodied in Appendix III. Note 2. (2) x x x x Note 1.-Rules for the medical examination of the candidates as to their physical fitness for Government service have been embodied in Appendix III. Note 2. XXxX Note 3 XXX Note 4.- XXXX Note 5.- (i) For a proper observance of the procedure in the above Notes 3 and 4 above, it is necessary that intimation regarding unfitness should immediately on receipt, be communicated to the person concerned with a note that appeal, if any, must be made by the Government employee concerned, within one month from the date of communication of the findings of the Medical Officer and that if any medical certificate issued by the Registered Medical Practitioner is produced as piece of evidence about the possibility of an error of judgment in the decision of the Medical Officer who examined him in the first instance the certificate must contain a note by the Medical Practitioner Concerned to the effect that it has been given full knowledge of the fact that the candidate has already been rejected as unfit for Government service by the Medical Officer. (ii) XXXXXX Schedule “B’ reads as under: 1. When a candidate for admission into the Civil Services of Government, appears before the medical authority for visual test, the medical authority shall be guided by the different minimum standards as prescribed in Annexure 'A' to this Schedule. This is the "Sorting Out" stage, where the obviously suited are certified fit without further trouble. 2. The doubtful and unsuitable cases shall be referred to a "Board of Referees", comprising of at least three ophthalmologists who shall get the cases examined on the following points: (i) Previous record of glasses worn. (ii) Determination of refractive error under homatropine. (iii) Fundus changes, particularly in the anterior part of choria-retina. (iv) Vitreous changes. (v) Absolute Visual Acuity. (vi) Radius of curvature of cornea. (vii) Ascertainment of the nature of his work, particularly in relation to subjective and objective hazards. And shall assess the visual capacity against the visual task expected in which they shall be guided by certain classic standards according to the work to be assigned to the candidate. 3. The Board shall have the right to order the reexamination of a candidate annually for three years to determine the stability or unstability of a refractive error before he is finally confirmed. 4. 3. The Board shall have the right to order the reexamination of a candidate annually for three years to determine the stability or unstability of a refractive error before he is finally confirmed. 4. The "Board of Referees" decision shall be final and irrevocable. 5. When a candidate is referred to a Medical Board, the Board shall be guided by the standards laid down in Annexure 'A' (Preliminary standards) and those who fall short of the standard shall be referred to the "Board of Referees". 6. Rules for the guidance of Board of Referees are as specified in Annexure 'B' 8. Annexure ‘A’ of Appendix-III which is relevant for deciding the controversy raised in the present petition reads under: ANNEXURE 'A' of APPENDIX III Preliminary Visual Standard for all Services Group 'A' For posts requiring very high degree of visual acuity with unaided eye Visual acuity unaided vision is not less than 6/6 in one eye and not less than 6/9 in the other. Posts for which such a higher standard is required : Armed and unarmed Police etc. Group 'B' For post requiring a very high degree of vision acuity with glasses and moderate degree without glass Visual acuity 6/24 each eye without glasses. 6/6 each eye with 2.5 D after correction. Normal colour vision as tested with the Ishihara test. No evident signs of infective condition of the external eye e.g. Trachoma. No squint. Group 'D' For posts which can do with a moderate degree of visual acuity Visual acuity Better eye 6/6 4.0 D worse eye 6/24 with glasses. No infective condition of the external eye. Posts that can do with such a moderate degree of visual acuity Class III posts and all types of desk work e.g. Clerks, Accountants, Organising Officers, Store keepers.” 5.4 It was unequivocally held that the colour blindness would not lead to disqualification from being appointed to the post of Police Constable as under, “9. A conspectus of the aforesaid rules and the requirement of the Appendix, would clarify that the same do not refer to colour blindness, which is treated as a predicament for the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Lok Rakshak. In the aforesaid rules, the colour blindness is not provided as a disqualification to the post to any Class-III posts, indisputably the post of Lok Rakshak, for which the petitioners seek appointment falls under Class-III post. In the aforesaid rules, the colour blindness is not provided as a disqualification to the post to any Class-III posts, indisputably the post of Lok Rakshak, for which the petitioners seek appointment falls under Class-III post. In Group ‘A’, which refers to “Armed and unarmed Police etc.”, the requirement is “very high degree of visual acuity with unaided eye. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are having any myopic vision for which they require the aid of glasses. Their case will not fall under Group ‘B’ which refer to “a very high degree of vision of acuity with glasses and moderate degree without glasses”. The posts under Group ‘D’ which refer to desk work also does not refer to colour blindness as a disqualification. Hence, it is ostensible that the respondents have acted contrary to the rules which govern their medical fitness.” 5.5 The Court proceeded to rely on an Apex Court decision, “10. The Supreme Court in the case of Satya Prakash Vashishth (supra) while examining a similar issue and rules prescribed for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) has held that colour blindness was not a disqualification, as the same was not incorporated in the rules. In the judgment rendered in the case of Khant Harishchandra (supra), this court while examining the case of Unarmed Constable, who was having colour blindness, has set aside the termination and it is observed that "It cannot be ipso facto judged that the colour blindness, is itself a disqualification for any post in question." It is also observed that there are no specific provisions which treats colour blindness as a disqualification or unfitness for the post of Unarmed Police Constable. In the present case, the petitioners have applied for the post of Lok Rakshak, which is Class-III post and stands at equal pedestal to the post of Unarmed Police Constable. The advertisement dated 11.02.2009 referred by the learned Assistant Government Pleader does not reflect any clause which denies appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak to such candidates who suffer from colour blindness. The Resolutions dated 28.12.2006 & Circular dated 11.02.2009 are neither annexed with the affidavit in reply nor they are shown to this Court. The advertisement dated 11.02.2009 referred by the learned Assistant Government Pleader does not reflect any clause which denies appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak to such candidates who suffer from colour blindness. The Resolutions dated 28.12.2006 & Circular dated 11.02.2009 are neither annexed with the affidavit in reply nor they are shown to this Court. Hence, the less the law enunciated in the aforenoted judgments will prevail.” 5.6 Similar issue had arose in Bharatbhai Madevbhai Raval v. Director General of Police being Special Civil Application No.4775 of 2020 and allied petitions decided as per common order dated 23rd September, 2020, in which the court inter alia observed as under. “19. This Court is further of the view that though the appellants are entitled to the benefit of service from the date when they should have ordinarily been appointed on being selected yet it would not be appropriate to treat the earlier period prior to the date of their appointment as a period to be reckoned as actual service if a period of actual service is prescribed as a necessary qualification or promotion. It is also made clear that the promotion already made of persons junior to the petitioners in the merit list on account of the late appointment of the petitioners shall not be disturbed as a result of the relief granted to these petitioners. Subject to these limitations, the entire period commencing from the date when the petitioners should have ordinarily been appointed would be treated as a part of their continuous service for all other purposes including the retiral benefits and fixation of their seniority.” 5.7 Similar decision in Desai Ronak Jayrambhai v. Director General of Police being Special Civil Application No.3231 of 2020 and allied petitions stands on the same facts and the issue involved. As already stated, one of the decisions of the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nai Kishorkumar Dalsukhbhai v. State of Gujarat being Letters Patent Appeal No.1136 of 2018 decided as per order dated 07th February, 2018. 6. As a result of above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The following order would govern the outcome of the petition. 6. As a result of above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The following order would govern the outcome of the petition. (i) The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Armed Police Constable- Lok Rakshak from the date when his immediate junior was appointed; (ii) The petitioner’s colour blindness shall not be treated as ineligibility and ignoring the colour blindness, if nothing adverse is otherwise found against the petitioner; (iii) The services of the petitioner shall be treated as continuous from the date when the immediate junior of the petitioner came to be appointed; (iv) It is however made clear that if any promotion is already granted in the interregnum to the persons junior to the petitioner, the same shall not be disturbed as a result of the relief granted in this petition to the petitioner; (v) The period from the date of appointment to be given to the petitioner as above till his actual appointment shall be counted as notional for the purpose of payment of salary. However it shall be treated as continuous for all other purposes including fixation of salary, retirement benefits and fixation of seniority, qualified by the above condition that already granted promotions shall not be disturbed. 7. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the said extent. Direct service is permitted.