JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Ishan Joshi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present petition is filed seeking direction of this Court to appoint the petitioner as Lokrakshak with all consequential benefits, back wages and to direct the respondents to issue appointment letter with a further direction to quash and set aside unfit certificate issued by the respondents. 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement for direct recruitment of various posts, the petitioner, being eligible and qualified, applied for the same. The petitioner successfully cleared written and main examination and oral interview. The petitioner was informed about his selection in the armed category. 2.2 After selection, the petitioner was sent for medical examination at GMERS, Valsad, where he was declared unfit as having colour vision blindness. The petitioner was again sent for re-examination to Board of Referees, where also he was declared unfit. 3. According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, this issue is very much covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as decision of Division Bench of this Court and therefore, action of discontinuation on the ground of colour vision is ex-facie impermissible. 3.1 It is submitted that the petitioner is fully eligible and has successfully cleared process of recruitment, but it is only on account of colour vision issue, on the opinion given by the Board of Referees that he is deprived of actual appointment and this issue according to the petitioner is squarely covered by decision of this Court in past and as such the petitioner has requested the Court to deal with and dispose of the petition. 4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent-State authority pointed out that all the petitioners have approached the Court at a belated stage. By virtue of resolution dated 21.3.2017, it would be open for the respondent authority to put an end to the services even if, taken on job without issuance of notice. A further contention is also raised that it was expected by all the petitioner to submit an appeal before appropriate authority against certificate issued by the Medical Officer. No such appeal is filed by the petitioner. A further contention is also raised that it was expected by all the petitioner to submit an appeal before appropriate authority against certificate issued by the Medical Officer. No such appeal is filed by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that it may be that Co-ordinate Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court has taken decision in favour of concerned petitioners on this very issue, but the State Government has already preferred Special Leave Petition which is lying with Diary Number 12397 of 2020 in Apex Court and as such, the State appears to have taken a stand that since the State Government has challenged the decision of Division Bench of this Court, in Supreme Court the petitions may not be entertained. 4.1 However, there is nothing on record to show that any notice is issued or even any interim relief is granted by the Apex Court simply and at a diary number stage the State Appeal is pending. With this background learned AGP for the State Authority has attempted to oppose this petition, but has candidly submitted that issue is dealt with in past by this Court and it was decided against the State Authority on the issue of colour vision being suffered by candidate and as such learned AGP has ultimately submitted that even if an eventuality to take place to allow the petitioner to be reinstated then liberty be kept open for the State authority to specifically mention in their appointment that such appointment would be subject to the result of the decision being take by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition. 4.2 Learned AGP also objected to the grant of petition, particularly on the ground of delay stating that though the order of discontinue was passed earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court after waiting for considerable period and was in fact, fence sitter, watching the outcome of other petitions of similarly situated candidates, and thereafter, looking to the success in those petitions, now, the petitioner has approached the Court. 5. With these submissions, learned AGP has fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Court with no much resistance. No other submissions have been made. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the aforesaid factual background of the case, it appears that the petitioner is deprived of appointment only on the ground of colour vision. No other submissions have been made. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the aforesaid factual background of the case, it appears that the petitioner is deprived of appointment only on the ground of colour vision. Except this, there is no other issue about any infirmity in his selection or his eligibility or suitability. In series of decisions, Coordinate Bench as well as by Division Bench of this Court dealt with and clearly opined in favour of the concerned petitioner. On the basis of order dated 26.07.2018 passed in group of petitions headed by Special Civil Application No. 15431 of 2017, this colour blindness/vision issue is extensively dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and looking to the observations at length made in paragraph No. 4.1 to paragraph No. 7, it has been decided that the stand of the authority is not permissible. Co-ordinate bench of this Court has also followed earlier decisions which have been taken on this very same issue and then ultimately allowed the petitions. Operative part whereof reads as under: “7. The petitioners shall be given appointments immediately and in any case within ten days from the date of receipt of this order. As the facts clearly show that the petitioners were given letters of appointment but their appointments were withheld on the ground that they had colour blindness and that the said ground was quite unsustainable in law rendering denial of appointment to be illegal, the petitioners were deprived of the appointment for no good reasons, much less their own fault, and the action of the respondents being manifestly illegal and treated as not to be the valid ground, the petitioners shall be entitled to full salary and emoluments for the intervening period. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of the aforesaid order, which shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitions stand allowed accordingly.” 7. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of the aforesaid order, which shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitions stand allowed accordingly.” 7. Examining the record further of this matter, it appears to this Court that this very issue was also examined by even Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1136 of 2018, wherein also by detailed examination of all these relevant rules and the stand taken by the State authority, the Division Bench was of the clear opinion that no case made out by the State authority. As a result of this, the appeals of the candidates came to be allowed by moulding relief. 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on these two decisions, the observations made by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1136 of 2018 dated 2.11.2018, the Court would like to reproduce certain relevant observations herein: “9. A perusal of the record of the case reveals that vide communication dated 29.08.2012, the Additional Police Commissioner (Administration), Ahmedabad city requested the Civil Surgeon, Sola Civil Hospital that the candidates for appointment of unarmed Lok Rakshaks had been sent to them for the purpose of medical examination in terms of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Part-II, Appendix VII, Rule 3 and calling upon them to refer the candidates for further examination to the Board of Referees, Civil Hospital and send medical fitness certificates accordingly. Thus, the authorities have placed reliance upon rule 3 of Appendix VII of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The Bombay Civil Services Rules have since been repealed by the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 2000; however, rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 2000 which provides that certificate of physical fitness is a prerequisite for substantive appointment or continuance in service is in pari materia with the Bombay Civil Services Rules. Annexure-A of Appendix III under rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions)Rules, 2000 also lays down similar conditions as the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Chapter III. Annexure-A of Appendix III under rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions)Rules, 2000 also lays down similar conditions as the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Chapter III. Rule 11 of the General Conditions of Service, Chapter-III bears the heading “Certificate of physical fitness, a prerequisite for substantive appointment or continuance in service” and lays down that 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. Appendix-III as prescribed under rule 11 provides for form of medical certificate. It is further provided that candidate will be required to pass the visual test laid down in the regulations as to the standards of vision vide Schedule “B” below. A candidate whose standard of vision does not come up to the requirement of services specified in Annexure “A” to Schedule “B” shall be referred to the Board of Referees for assessment of their visual standard in relation to the nature of work the candidate is expected to do. The candidate declared unfit by the Board of Referees will not be eligible for appointment in Government service. Rule 1of Appendix-III provides that candidates will be examined and certified by the Civil Surgeon of the District in which they are employed or resided for the time being or by a Medical Officer duly appointed for the purpose (vide Schedule “A” below): 9.1 Schedule “B” bears the heading “Regulations as to the standard provision” and reads thus: “SCHEDULE”B” [See Rules-7 and 11(vi) of Appendix-III] Regulation as to the standard provision: 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. (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 un-stability 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’ 9.2 Annexure “A” of Appendix-III, to the extent the same is relevant for the present purpose, reads thus: “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 visualacuity Visual acuity Better eye 6/6 4.0 D worse eye 6/24 with glasses. No infective condition of the external eye. 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 visualacuity 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.” 9.3 A perusal of the above rules reveals that insofar as the candidates for the post of Armed and Unarmed Police, who fall under Group “A” are concerned, the requirement is “visualacuity - unaided vision is not less than 6/6 in one eye and not less than 6/9 in the other.” For the said group, colour blindness is not shown to be a disqualification. Insofar as Group “B” is concerned, the same specifically provides for “normal colour vision as tested with the Ishihara test.” The said requirement relates to all Class-I and Class-II posts, namely, Medical and Engineering Services, Class II, Superintendents and Sub-Inspectors of Police, with which we are not concerned in the present case. Group “D” relates to the post with a moderate degree of visual acuity, which provides for visual acuity - Better eye 6/6 +/- 4.0 D worse eye 6/24 with glasses. This is the requirement for Class-III posts and all types of desk work, viz. Clerks, Accountants, Organising Officers, and Store-Keepers. 9.4 The post of a Lok Rakshak can either be considered in Group “A” viz. Armed and Unarmed Police or a Class-III post falling in the category of Group “D.” In either case, no disqualification is provided for colour blindness. It is evident on reading the rules as a whole that where the rules wanted to provide for normal colour vision, the same is specifically stated in the group as in the case of the Group “B” where the requirement is normal colour vision as tested with the Ishihara. Clearly therefore, the relevant rules governing appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak do not provide for any specific disqualification for candidates suffering from colour blindness. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts as emerging from the record, the legal position is required to be examined. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Satya Prakash Vasisht, 1994 Supp. Clearly therefore, the relevant rules governing appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak do not provide for any specific disqualification for candidates suffering from colour blindness. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts as emerging from the record, the legal position is required to be examined. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Satya Prakash Vasisht, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 52, has, after perusing the relevant rules as applicable in the facts of the said case, observed that it was clear that the requirement that the candidate should be free from colour blindness is only for the post of Drivers and traffic staff in sub-clause (ii) and that does not apply to sub-clause (i) relating to Constables, Head Constables and Sub-Inspectors (Executive). The court held that it was obvious that the disqualification of colour blindness has no application to sub-clause (iii). The court observed that there was clearly discernible basis for the disqualification of colour blindness for persons appointed as Drivers and traffic staff, the nature of whose duties are different from that of a Sub- Inspector (Executive). 11. Moreover, a Division Bench of this court in Khant Harishchandra Amarsinh vs. Superintendent of Police (supra) has, in a similar set of facts, held that when there was no provision which disqualified or rendered “colour blindness” unfit for the post of Unarmed Police Constable, the termination of the services of the petitioner therein could not be said to be in consonance with the terms of his appointment. The court held that merely because the order of appointment stipulated that the appointment was subject to medical unfitness, does not necessarily ipso facto lead to unerring inference that such an appointment, despite the colour blindness certified by the Medical Board is not legal and proper. The court held that whether a particular type of unfit certificate by the Medical Board would be ground of termination of service or cancellation of the appointment order or not, will have to be adjudicated upon the terms and conditions of the service and the governing rules. It cannot be ipso facto judged that the colour blindness is itself disqualification for any post in question. 12. It cannot be ipso facto judged that the colour blindness is itself disqualification for any post in question. 12. In the light of the law laid down in the above decisions, it clearly emerges that in case any candidates are sought to be disqualified on the ground that they suffer from colour blindness, there has to be a specific provision in the rules providing for such disqualification. In the facts of the present case, a perusal of the relevant rules clearly indicates that no such disqualification has been provided for the post in question. Under the circumstances, it is not permissible for the respondents to adopt a stand that the appellants herein are not qualified for the post of Lok Rakshak. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in holding that every kind of deficiency or incapacity is not to be mentioned in the recruitment rules, and therefore, merely because it has not been specifically provided in the rules, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner therein should be treated as medically fit inspite of negative opinion after the examination. 13. This court is of the opinion that the view adopted by the learned Single Judge in Dineshbhai Govindbhai Kathechiya (supra), is in consonance with the settled legal position and the relevant rules and does not find it possible to agree with the view adopted by the learned Single Judge in the present case. 14. The appeals stand allowed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7595 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7595 of 2013 is hereby allowed to the following extent. 15. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellants for appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak ignoring their colour blindness, and if nothing adverse is found against them, they shall be appointed on the said post forthwith. Since considerable time has elapsed since the recruitment was made, it is left to the discretion of the respondent authorities to appoint the appellants to any other Class-III post having equal pay if the post of Lok Rakshak is not available. It is also directed that in case the appellants are not assigned active duty of Lok Rakshak, they may be assigned table work as an alternative. 16. It is also directed that in case the appellants are not assigned active duty of Lok Rakshak, they may be assigned table work as an alternative. 16. The question now is of the nature of relief which should be granted to the appellants in view of the fact though the selections took place in the year 2009, they would be appointed only now after a period of more than nine years. In the meanwhile the other selected candidates have been duly appointed and have been working for several years since then. In such a situation the grant of back-wages does not appear to be just and proper. 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 appellants in the merit list on account of the late appointment of the appellants shall not be disturbed as a result of the relief granted to the appellants. Subject to these limitations, the entire period commencing from the date when the appellants 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. 17. Necessary orders shall be passed by the respondent authorities within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a writ of this court.” 9. On the basis of aforesaid observations which are clearly made by division bench of this Court, the issue is squarely covered by aforesaid decision. The State Government before Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned AGP has also candidly submitted that the matter is pending. No orders are placed on record. 10. This being the situation and since all the contentions permissible in law are examined by Coordinate Bench as well as by other decisions including Division Bench’s judgment, there is no reason to take a different view. 11. Learned AGP has also candidly submitted that the matter is pending. No orders are placed on record. 10. This being the situation and since all the contentions permissible in law are examined by Coordinate Bench as well as by other decisions including Division Bench’s judgment, there is no reason to take a different view. 11. So far as other issue which has been raised about delay, the same would be insignificance for the State to raise since such an issue in view of the fact that State was very much a party to the said issue having being decided by several benches of this Court and as such the Court would not like to deviate the core issue and would like to grant relief as prayed for in the petitions. 12. With regard to the question of delay by the petitioner in approaching the Court, as raised by the State, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 538 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 9199 of 2020, where the similar ground of delay was raised on behalf of State, but considering the fact that since the issue of colour vision to be treated as disqualified has been considered at various levels in several petitions and the same have been allowed. No different view could have been taken even on the ground of delay. 13. However, while allowing the petition, the Court would surely concerned that the nature of relief and how to be granted and for that purpose the Court has an advantage and assistance of the operative part of the decision of Division Bench of this Court as stated above. 14. In view of above, petitioner herein being similarly situated as the petitioners in the abovereferred cases, deserves to be granted with the same benefit. Accordingly, the impugned orders and actions are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak ignoring his medical incapacity, and if nothing adverse is found against him, he shall be appointed on the said post forthwith. Since considerable time has elapsed since the recruitment, it is left to the discretion of the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner to any other Class- III post having equal pay if the posts of Lok Rakshak are not available. Since considerable time has elapsed since the recruitment, it is left to the discretion of the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner to any other Class- III post having equal pay if the posts of Lok Rakshak are not available. It is also directed that in case the petitioner is not assigned active duty of Lok Rakshak, he may be considered for table work as an alternative. 15. This Court is further of the view that though the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of service from the date when he 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 petitioner in the merit list on account of the late appointment of the petitioner shall not be disturbed as a result of the relief granted to the petitioner. Subject to these limitations, the entire period commencing from the date when the petitioner should have ordinarily been appointed would be treated as a part of his continuous service for purposes of retiral benefits and fixation of their seniority. 16. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. 17. Direct service is permitted.