IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12342 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.09.2011 Joginder Khatri .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. C.M. No. 12182 of 2011 Document taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 12342 of 2010 The respondents had advertised 1940 posts for Constable (general duty) on 05.10.2007. The petitioner was one of the applicant and appeared for appointment. Physical measurement was taken by the Selection Board and the petitioner was found fulfilling the requisite standards. The petitioner was permitted to participate in physical efficiency test on 23.01.2008 and was called for interview on 03.05.2008. The petitioner was selected. The petitioner had joined duty in Second Battalion HAP Madhuban and was sent for medical examination. On examination by the Surgeon, he was found physically fit but eyes examination revealed that he was having a defect in colour vision. The petitioner was then referred Civil Writ Petition No. 12342 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to PGIMS, Rohtak for medical examination where he appeared on 19.11.2008. On examination by the Board, the petitioner was declared unfit. Again on recommendation of CM's office, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board at PGIMS, Rohtak on 15.01.2009 but was declared unfit. The petitioner had then got himself examined at AIIMS, New Delhi where it was found that he has no defect in colour vision. The petitioner appears to have approached this Court on 05.08.2009 and writ petition was disposed of by observing that the petitioner may file representation on the basis of contradictory medical reports. The petitioner filed a representation on 11.11.2009, which was rejected on the ground that there is no provision to refer this case for medical check up to an independent agency. Relying on an order passed in CWP No. 14795 of 2009, where direction was issued to appoint such similarly situated person, the petitioner had approached this Court through the present writ petition. The respondents have filed reply pointing out the petitioner was declared medically unfit by Civil Surgeon, Karnal. The case was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for further medical examination by the Board of Doctors. The said report was also referred to Civil Surgeon, Karnal, who intimated that the petitioner was unfit for the post of Constable. It is also pointed out that there is no provision to direct re-examination for another medical check up through an independent agency under the rules. Accordingly, this prayer was declined. Civil Writ Petition No. 12342 of 2010 (O&M) -3- The counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court on 04.03.2010. Copy of this judgment has been annexed with the writ petition. This Court had issued direction on the basis of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court to appoint the petitioners therein, who had also been suffering from colour blindness. Additional affidavit has now been filed by the Commandant 2nd Battalion, Madhuban to explain delay on his part to response to the orders passed on 26.07.2011. As per the Commandant, the order passed by this Court was received by him after date by which it was to be complied with. In another separate affidavit, the Commandant had pointed out that the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court has been set aside by the LPA Bench and the copy of the order so passed has also been placed on record. The distinction, which has been noticed by the LPA Bench, is that judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the appointment to the post of Executive Constable whereas the duties to be performed by the General Duty Constable are entirely different. Accordingly, the view taken by the Single Bench to rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to grant relief has not found the approval of the LPA Bench. In this background, no case for interfering in the case of the petitioner is made out. The prayer for getting the petitioner re-examined by some independent agency has no basis Civil Writ Petition No. 12342 of 2010 (O&M) -4- and cannot be accepted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE