--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 6705 / 2009 VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & FOUR OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 21/9/2011) The petitioner before this Court, a Head Constable serving Central Reserved Police Force, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by denial of promotion to the post of Asstt. Sub Inspector and also denial on the part of the respondents to grant permission to him to attend Senior Under Officers Cadre Course. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of standing order No.4 of 2008 as the petitioner is suffering from colour blindness, he was not permitted to participate in the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course and this Court has granted permission to the petitioner vide order dt. 16/9/09 to participate in the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course. --- 2 --- Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, has informed this Court that the petitioner has completed the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course and a similar matter was disposed of by the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Vs. Union of India and the subsequent policy issued by the Union of India dt. 11/3/11 was considered by the Delhi High Court. He has also informed this Court that the colour blind persons who were inducted prior to 17/5/02 were held to be entitled for promotion with a rider that they shall not be assigned with security duties where fire arms have to be handled. Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India has not disputed the aforesaid policy dt. 11/3/11 and the order passed by the Delhi High Court and his contention is that the present petition be disposed of on similar terms. The Delhi High Court in the case of Mohanlal Sharma Vs. Union of India W.P. (c) No. 11855 / 2009 has held as under : 3. It is apparent that the latest policy dt. 11/3/2011 is nothing but a repatriation of the earlier policy dated 17/5/2002. the only modification is that such colour blind persons, who were inducted prior to 17/5/2002, --- 3 --- would not be assigned such security duties where firearms have to be handled. To put it pithily, non technical duties would be assigned to such persons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner desires a clarification, given by the learned counsel for the respondents, that these persons would be eligible and entitled for promotion as per rules. 5. Needless to state the respondents concede that on the administrative side, respondents need to carve out an exception on the issue of physical fitness relatable to eyesight. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent assures that WP (C) 11855 / 2009 Page 2 of 3 necessary administrative instructions carrying out an exception on the issue of colour blindness would be finalised soon. 7. Petitioner HC M.L. Sharma was inducted as a Constable on 6/7/1981. It is apparent that he joined service prior to 17/5/2002. He has earned promotion firstly as a L/Nk., and thereafter as a Naik. The post of Naik stands merged as that of a Havaldar. 8. Petitioner's entitlement to the post of Sub Inspector came into the turbulent waters on the issue of colour blindness. Since the issue has been resolved in favour of the petitioner, respondents are directed to pass necessary orders with respect to petitioner's promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector w.e.f., the date persons --- 4 --- junior were promoted with all consequential benefits except backwages. Keeping in view the aforesaid as the petitioner has also cleared the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course, he is also entitled for promotion as per his seniority and therefore the respondents are directed to pass necessary orders with respect to the petitioner's promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector with effect from the date the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted with all consequential benefits except backwages. The petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR