JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13173/2019. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents-original petitioners had participated in selection process for the post of Constable in State Police Services. The recruitment was meant only for the candidates of Tribal Sub Plan area. The petitioners were subjected to written test and once they cleared, they were subjected to physical efficiency test. They were, thereafter, selected and sent for medical test, which was performed by the Medical Board constituted by the State authorities. Once the petitioners cleared the physical efficiency test and medical test also, they were recruited along with other candidates and under order dated 27.12.2018 were sent for training at BSF Training Center, Udhampur (Jammu and Kashmir). While under training, they were once again subjected to physical test. During such testing, the petitioners failed the required standards on the grounds of low night vision or colour blindness etc. In essence, all the petitioners suffered from one or other similar deficiencies. Without issuing any notice, the petitioners' services were terminated in August, 2019. The petitioners immediately approached the High Court and learned Single Judge stayed the termination orders. Eventually, the present writ petition and other connected petitions were heard and disposed of by the common impugned judgment. The learned Judge referred to recruitment advertisement in which, it was stated that the persons with low night vision and colour blindness would not be qualified. However, learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the State authorities had already examined the physical fitness of the petitioners through the Medical Board at one stage and thereafter, recruited the petitioners in service. Once the recruitment was over, the petitioners could not have been subjected to fresh physical examination. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, it was a wholly fortuitous circumstance that the petitioners were sent for training at BSF Camp, where such physical examination was conducted again. If other candidates were not sent to the same training center, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, such physical shortcomings would have gone undetected. The learned Single Judge was, however, conscious of the fact that in the police force, persons with low night vision or colour blindness as per recruitment rules were not qualified. If other candidates were not sent to the same training center, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, such physical shortcomings would have gone undetected. The learned Single Judge was, however, conscious of the fact that in the police force, persons with low night vision or colour blindness as per recruitment rules were not qualified. The learned Judge, therefore, referred to Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2016") and while setting aside the termination orders, permitted the State Government to engage the petitioners in any other service. It is this judgment that the State Government has challenged in present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. What emerges as undisputed position is that (i) all the petitioners were subjected to full scale selection process comprising of written test followed by physical efficiency test; (ii) once the petitioners cleared both and were found meritorious enough to be included in the select list, they were subjected to physical examination through medical board constituted by the State Government; (iii) the Medical Board also found the petitioners physically fit enough to discharge duties as Constables; (iv) it was after such detailed process that the petitioners were offered appointment. They were appointed and sent for in-service training; (v) during such in-service training, they were subjected to physical examination again when it was noticed that they suffered from low night vision or colour blindness; (vi) on this ground, the services of the petitioners were terminated without affording them any opportunity of hearing. 4. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has committed no error. As noted, the petitioners were recruited and appointed to a Government post. They were, thus, in-service when they were sent for training. It may be that for being confirmed on the post, successful completion of the training is compulsory as per the rules. However, the petitioners did not fail to complete the training. Their services were terminated on entirely different grounds. The learned Single Judge, therefore, correctly viewed the situation as one in which, the services of a Government servant were terminated after engagement. Clearly for whatever reasons, the State Government could not detect the deficiency in the vision of the petitioners before appointing them in the State service. Their services were terminated on entirely different grounds. The learned Single Judge, therefore, correctly viewed the situation as one in which, the services of a Government servant were terminated after engagement. Clearly for whatever reasons, the State Government could not detect the deficiency in the vision of the petitioners before appointing them in the State service. Once the petitioners became part of the Government employment, they would be governed by Section 20 of the Act of 2016. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 says that no Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 provides that no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability. As per sub-section (4), no Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service. The proviso to sub-section (4) says that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, he or she shall be shifted to some other post in the same pay scale and service benefits. 5. It may be that the petitioners cannot be stated to have acquired the disability during their service and in that sense, learned Additional Advocate General is correct in pointing out that sub-section (4) of Section 20 would not apply. Nevertheless, the very philosophy behind the enactment of the Act of 2016 and which is also manifest in Section 20 is that the person suffering from disability shall not be subjected to discriminatory treatment. This is clearly provided in sub-section (1) of Section 20. The Government having recruited the petitioners in service, now cannot be allowed to terminate their services and that too without affording an opportunity of hearing on the ground that subsequent to their recruitment, the Government learnt about the existing disability. 6. There is no denial that the requirement of police force is to engage the persons who are physically fit in all respects. It is essentially for this reason that the learned Single Judge has permitted the State authorities to assign any other duties to the petitioners while protecting them against termination. The learned Additional Advocate General, however, submitted that the recruitment process for such other posts is separate. He may be correct in such contention. It is essentially for this reason that the learned Single Judge has permitted the State authorities to assign any other duties to the petitioners while protecting them against termination. The learned Additional Advocate General, however, submitted that the recruitment process for such other posts is separate. He may be correct in such contention. Nevertheless, in the peculiar circumstances and situation which arises on account of error on the part of the State Government, administrative adjustment for meeting with the ends of justice shall have to be made. Surely, there are large number of posts even in the police department, which are of clerical and other cadres must be vacant. 7. At this stage, the learned Additional Advocate General drew attention to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to give alternative post commensurate with the status and educational qualification of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the original petitioners clarified that as long as their pay is protected, they would work on any post. In view of this clarification, the direction of the learned Single Judge stands modified. 8. We are informed that by virtue of stay of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the services of the petitioners were once again terminated. Such termination shall stand recalled. However, it is clarified that for the intervening period, during which the petitioners did not discharge any duties, they would not be entitled to any pay. 9. Subject to above, the appeal is disposed of.