IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.13338 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.04.2009 Satish Kumar ...Petitioner V E R S U S State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. S. N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure P-5) as per which he has declared unfit for the job of Constable due to the fact that he has colour blindness. The rules regarding eye sight are as follows:- “The recruit must be able to read the Test Dot Card at a distance of ten feet without any mistake, with each eye without spectacles. Failure to do this renders him unfit. Each eye must have a full filed of vision as tested by hand movements. Squint of any other morbid condition of the eyes or eye lids liable to the risk of aggravation of recurrence will render him unfit.” It would be seen that there is no stipulation that colour blindness would render a person unfit in the rules. The matter is not res integra. In Union of India v. Satya Prakash Vasisht reported as 1994 Supp (2) SCC 52 Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as follows:- “The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the expresion “shall be free from colour blindness” is applicable both to sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) and not merely to sub-clause (ii). It is on this basis that the learned counsel for the appellants supported the non-appointment of the respondent on the ground that he was colour blind. We are unable to accept this contention. Reading the above extract as a whole, it is clear that the requirement that the candidate should be free from colour blindness is only for the post of Drivers and traffic staff in sub-clause (ii) and that does not apply to sub-clause (i) relating to Constables, Head Constables and Sub-Inspectors (Executive). It is obvious that the disqualification of colour blindness has no application to sub-clause (iii) and this was rightly not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. In such a situation, the applicability (sic inapplicability) of the disqualification of colour blindness to sub-clause (i) is further supported by the fact that the other expression “visual acuity (both eyes) 6/12 without glasses” is repeated identically in sub-clause (i) also even though it finds place in sub-clause (ii). If the words “shall be free from colour blindness” appearing in sub-clause (ii) were applicable also to sub-clause (i), the other expression “visual acuity (both eyes) 6/12 without glasses” would not have been repeated in sub-clause (i) when it finds place in sub-clause (ii). That apart, there is clearly discernible basis for the disqualification of colour blindness for persons appointed as Drivers and traffic staff, the nature of whose duties are different from that of a Sub-Inspector (Executive). The only contention advanced in support of the appellants cannot, therefore, be accepted.” In the circumstances, the order dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure P-5) cannot be sustained. Consequently, the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner since otherwise, admittedly he has been found suitable. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner would get his seniority at the tail end of the batch and all other consequential benefits except actual payment for the period that he did not work. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 29, 2009 JUDGE ashish