IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8513 of 2006 MRITUNJAY KUMAR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4. 23.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for Respondent-Union of India. Despite two adjournments, the Respondents have chosen not to file counter affidavit, an unfortunate situation. The petitioner was an applicant to an employment notification published on 28.2.2004 by the office of the Chief Post- Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow. He was selected for appointment as Postal Assistant for deputation to Army Postal Services. He was physically examined before the Branch Recruitment office at Meerut of the Army which classified him as permanently unfit due to colour blindness CP-IV. His re-verification from All India Institute of Medical Sciences classifiing him as colour blindness CP- III was rejected by Army authorities that civilian report is not acceptable. Today, learned counsel has filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing an advertisement published by the Indian Air Force on 14.2.2003 for appointment as Airman Technical (Intermediate) Trades. He submits from clause 3 of the advertisement dealing with medical standards more particularly the aspect of colour vision that CP-III/IV were acceptable standards for appointment. The submission, therefore, is that if one wing of the armed forces considers a person of colour vision CP-III/IV acceptable for - 2 - purpose of appointment, there is no justification for another wing of armed forces to deny the same benefit. Had a counter affidavit been filed by the Respondents, this Court may have the benefit of the same. This writ application is, therefore, disposed with a direction to Respondent no. 3 to examine the eligibility of the petitioner in light of the aspects noticed in the present discussion and take a fresh decision with regard to the petitioner in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. In the event, the Respondent proposes to pass an order prejudicial to the petitioner, he shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. The writ application is disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)