ORDER : 1. The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the appellant herein, being aggrieved of the order dated 26.10.2021, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10432/2021 preferred by the appellant petitioner was dismissed. 2. The appellant petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 05.10.2016. He succeeded in the competitive written examination as well as physical proficiency test and was declared successful as per the result declared on 01.09.2020. After being declared successful in the initial selection process, the petitioner appellant was called for medical examination vide communication dated 31.12.2020. The petitioner underwent the medical examination at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur which issued a certificate dated 05.01.2021 opining that the petitioner was otherwise medically fit for appointment except for a Colour Vision Defect for which, he was referred to special Ophthalmologist Board for more accurate opinion. The board, constituted of Ophthalmology specialist, issued its report dated 06.01.2021 opining that on the colour vision parameter, as per the Ishihara Chart, there was partial red-green defect, but on the lantern test, the petitioner possessed high order of colour perception and that he was fit for the post from Ophthalmology side. 3. The Director General of Police issued a schedule for re-medical examination of 15 provisionally selected candidates including the petitioner. The re-medical examination was undertaken at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur on 24.02.2021. After conducting the re-medical examination, the Medical Board issued a certificate dated 25.02.2021, opining that the petitioner appellant was having defective colour vision owing to lack of high grade colour perception. Pursuant thereto, the final result was declared wherein, the petitioner’s name was omitted upon which, he preferred the above writ petition which has been dismissed by order dated 26.10.2021. The petitioner has assailed the above order in this special appeal. 4. Shri Harshad Bhadu, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant referred to the statutory instructions dated 13.03.2020 governing physical examination of candidates for admission into various state services under the Government of Rajasthan and urged that as per clause 14 (reproduced hereinbelow), second medical examination of the candidate cannot be conducted unless reasons are recorded in writing :- “14. Guidelines for re-examination.-(d) Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that Medical examination has not been properly conducted, the Government may order re-medical examination. Guidelines for re-examination.-(d) Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that Medical examination has not been properly conducted, the Government may order re-medical examination. Such re-medical examination can be conducted at any time but in no case later than 6 months after the first medical examination. No fee shall be charged from the candidates for such re-examination.” 5. Shri Bhadu contended that in the present case, no reasons were recorded in the order dated 22.02.2021 whereby, re-medical examination was directed. The first Medical Board gave a pertinent report after taking opinion from three Ophthalmology experts that the petitioner was fit for the post from Ophthalmology side. The order dated 22.02.2021 whereby, the re-medical examination was scheduled, is absolutely laconic and contrary to the mandate of clause 14(d) of the guidelines. He further submitted that the second Medical Board has given an opinion regarding lack of colour perception on the basis of the Ishihara test which is obsolete, whereas, the petitioner possesses the full spectrum colour perception as per the Lantern test, which is more accurate. Shri Bhadu thus urged that the order dated 07.07.2021 whereby appointments to the post in question were made by the respondents omitting the name of the petitioner so also the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench be quashed and respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector as per his standing in merit. 6. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. The first medical examination of the petitioner appellant which was conducted by the Medical Board on 05.01.2021 clearly indicates that the petitioner was having good physique and sound health except for colour vision defect. The board gave a conclusive report that it considered the incumbent unfit to enter the services under Government for colour vision defect. However, a referral was made to the Ophthalmologist Medical Board for re-verification of colour vision defect. The Ophthalmologist Medical Board conducted medical examination of the petitioner and noted a partial red green defect in the colour vision on the basis of Ishihara Chart. However, on Lantern Test, high order of colour perception was found present for red, green and blue colours when an aperture of 1.3 mm was applied. The Ophthalmologist Medical Board conducted medical examination of the petitioner and noted a partial red green defect in the colour vision on the basis of Ishihara Chart. However, on Lantern Test, high order of colour perception was found present for red, green and blue colours when an aperture of 1.3 mm was applied. The Ophthalmology Board opined that the incumbent was fit for the post. Taking note of the divergent opinions expressed by the medical experts, the Director General of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur issued the notification/ communication dated 22.02.2021 requiring 15 provisionally selected candidates including the writ petitioner to undergo fresh medical examination. The petitioner filed the writ petition to question this step of the respondents on the ground that the same is contrary to the guidelines referred to supra. 8. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner appellant did not challenge the direction for re-medical examination vide communication dated 22.02.2021 and submitted himself to the Medical Board for fresh examination. 9. Otherwise also, the very fact that there was a conflict of opinion/ discrepancy in the Medical Board reports dated 05.01.2021, it was essential to have a fresh medical examination conducted. We are of the opinion that the respondents would even have been justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature on the basis of the first Medical Board’s report itself because the petitioner was seeking entry into the police services which has direct involvement with public safety. Induction of a candidate suffering from vision defect into police service could entail risk to the people at large, when such officer who suffers from the vision defect is on field duty. The guideline referred to supra (clause 14(d)) is just advisory in nature. The reasonable grounds to believe as have been stipulated in clause 14(d), does not require that a voluminous reasoning should be recorded for holding fresh medical examination. The term ‘reasonable ground to believe’ just indicates that if the competent authority has reasonable doubt, regarding the first medical examination, in that situation, re-medical examination can be ordered. In the present case, the recruiting authority, minutely examined the record and thereafter issued the order dated 22.02.2021 requiring 15 provisionally selected candidates including the writ petitioner to undergo a fresh medical examination. In the present case, the recruiting authority, minutely examined the record and thereafter issued the order dated 22.02.2021 requiring 15 provisionally selected candidates including the writ petitioner to undergo a fresh medical examination. The petitioner did not challenge the said order and submitted himself to fresh medical examination, wherein, the colour vision defect of the petitioner was detected and highlighted. It may be noted here that in the first as well as the second medical examination, the petitioner failed the Ishihara Chart Test. As a matter of fact, the recruiting authority would have been justified to oust the writ petitioner from the zone of consideration right after the First Medical Board report but it acted pragmatically and gave a second chance to the candidates. Though, the petitioner had cleared the Lantern test in the examination by Ophthalmology Board but when the second medical examination was conducted on 25.02.2021, the Lantern Test was undertaken with two apertures, wherein the petitioner was able to identify primary colours with 13 mm aperture, however, he failed in the test taken with 1.3 mm aperture wherein, the Board noted that he was unable to differentiate between Yellow and Green colours. Accordingly, it was concluded that high grade colour perception was absent and hence, the petitioner was unfit for the service. We are of the firm view that the impugned action whereby, the petitioner was required to undergo the second medical examination, was absolutely justified in the prevailing facts and circumstances. The nature of service, to which the petitioner seeks access, is extremely sensitive because a police officer is required to extensively deal with public safety and assigning field duty to a police officer suffering from colour vision defect could entail risk to the public lives and safety. Shri Bhadu could not dispute the fact that a candidate with the vision defect, which has been detected in the petitioner, is not entitled to be appointed to the police service. 10. As such, we are of the firm view that Final Select List dated 07.07.2021 (Annex.-10) whereby the name of the writ petitioner was omitted and the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10432/2021], do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference in this intra court appeal. 11. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.