JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated 05.08.2016 and 12.09.2007 passed by respondent authority (Annexure No.1 and 2 to the writ petition) (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstated the petitioner in service on the post of Constable in Civil Police alongwith all consequential benefit with effect from 2007." 3. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was recruited on 01.09.2006 on the post of Civil Constable after following the due procedure of selection alongwith medical examination. He was sent for training for a period of 9 months and after completing his training, he was posted as Constable in District Ambedkar Nagar. In pursuance of Circular dated 29.06.2007 issued by Director General of Police, all the police personnel recruited in the recruitment process of 2004 to 2007 were directed to be re-examined by the Medical Board. In pursuance of aforesaid circular, the petitioner was re-examined on 31.08.2007 and it was found by the Medical Board that the petitioner was suffering from colour blind. Thereafter the services of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order dated 12.09.2007 passed by opposite party no.5/ Superintendent of Police, District Ambedkar Nagar. The petitioner challenged the said termination order before this Court at Allahabad by filing Writ-A N.31555 of 2016 ( Mohd. Naseem Vs. State of U.P. and others). The same was decided vide order dated 14.07.2016. In the aforesaid writ petition, it was directed that the petitioner may make a representation before opposite party no.4/Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar and the same will be decided by the said authority. In pursuance of which petitioner preferred representation, the same was rejected by impugned order dated 05.09.2016 passed by opposite party no.4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders cannot survive in the eye of law for the reason that earlier the petitioner was recruited and the recruitment procedure was followed including the medical examination, petitioner was directed to complete 9 months training and after completing his training he was appointed on the post of Constable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders cannot survive in the eye of law for the reason that earlier the petitioner was recruited and the recruitment procedure was followed including the medical examination, petitioner was directed to complete 9 months training and after completing his training he was appointed on the post of Constable. Once the appointment was done after following the due procedure of selection, it is not open for the respondents to say that the petitioner is suffering from colour blind. 5. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that case of the petitioner is slightly different because in the case of Pawan Kumar Singh ( supra), the employees had worked for sufficient period whereas the services of the petitioner was dispensed with within six months after his posting. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Pawan Kumar Singh (supra) therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention towards the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No 3500(SS) of 2015 (Ali Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 16.12.2016. He has submitted that Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (herein after referred as 'Act, 1955"). Section 33 of Act, 1955 provides "reservation of posts" that one percent post shall be reserved for personas suffering from; (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy; in the posts identified for each disability. Chapter-VII of the Act,1955 deals with "affirmative action" and Section 47 of the Act, 1955 provides non-discrimination in Government employment. The provision of Section 47 is quoted below:- "47. Non-discrimination in Government employment.-(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section." 7. A bare perusal of Section 47 of the Act, 1955, it is clear that service of a Government employee shall not be dispensed with, or reduce in rank, who acquires a disability during his service. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not suffering from the colour blind disease when he was recruited, therefore, his service cannot be dispensed with on the ground of aforesaid disease. 9. He has also submitted that the identical issue has also been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3500 (SS) of 2015 (Ali Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. and others). The relevant paras of the said judgment is quoted below:- "23. From a simple reading of Section-47 of the Act, 1995 it instantly brings out that the services of an employee shall not be dispensed with or reduced in rank who acquires disability during his service." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7982 (SS) of 2016 (Pawan Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 15.05.2018. Needless to mention herein that earlier Pawan Kumar Singh had filed Writ Petition No.45645 of 2007 (Pawan Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed vide order dated 08.12.2008. Against the said order Special Appeal No. 244 of 2009 ( State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh) was preferred and the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2009. Against the said order Civil Appeal No. 7152 of 2009 was preferred before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. 11. The Co-odrindate Bench has also made observation that colour blindness which eccrued during service, cannot be a ground for dispensing the service and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered from the aforesaid judgments. 12. The arguments advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel regarding length of service has no legs because the question of period in appointment will not be seen. 12. The arguments advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel regarding length of service has no legs because the question of period in appointment will not be seen. The petitioner after completing his training of nine months, was posted as Constable and once he was posted meaning thereby whatever disability he occurred during his service after appointment the length of service will not make any difference. The argument of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is overruled. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 05.08.2016 and 12.09.2007 passed by respondent no.5/ Superintendent of Police, District Ambedkar Nagar are quashed. The respondent no.5 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Constable with 50% back wages alongwith consequential benefits.