IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10998 of 2010 FORCE NO. 830741283 HEAD CONSTABLE S.N.SINGH S/O LATE RAM LAKHAN SINGH D/20 BATTALION, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (HQ.), DIPHU, KARBI AANGLONG, ASSAM AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- DUBEYDERA, P.O.- DHANAUTI, P.S.- CHARPOKHARI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, HOME DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI COLONY ROAD, NEW DELHI 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, GROUP CENTRE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA (BIHAR) 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, BANTALAB (JAMMU), JAMMU & KASHMIR 5. THE COMMANDANT, D/20 BATTALION, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (HQ.), DIPHU, KARBI AANGLONG, ASSAM For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, advocate. For the Union : Mr. Shiv Kumar, CGC. ----------- 06. 05.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India who has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner holds the post of Head Constable(GD) in the CRPF. He is aggrieved by the order of the Commandant 20th Battalion dated 17.4.2010, Annexure-2, whereunder it is stated that petitioner has been adjudged as medical category-5 on 11.7.2009 is not fit to undertake SUOCC course. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order dated 17.4.2010 is contrary to the provisions contained in Rules-11, 12 and 105 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Rule), which inter alia provide for minimum standards for appointment/promotion in the force. Declaration of the petitioner as medical category-5 is with respect to his eye sight for - 2 - which no minimum standard is provided in Rule 11 of the Rules. The standards as provided in Rule-105 may not apply to the petitioner as he is serving on the post of Head Constable(GD) and those standards are applicable for appointment/promotion on the post of superior officers. In case petitioner is allowed to undertake SUOCC course he shall become eligible for promotion on the next higher post i.e. Sub- Inspector. It is further submitted that standing order No.04/2008 dated 15.12.2008, Annexure-6 providing for in Clause-4 that members of the force with defective colour vision will be categorized E-5 and adjudged permanently unfit for service in the force tentamounts to amending Rules-11 and 105 of the Rule. In this connection, it is pointed out that Rules having been framed in terms of the provisions of the Act can only be amended through the same procedure by which the Rules have been enacted and not by issue of standing orders. According to the counsel for the petitioner Rule-11 as presently couched does not provide that any member of the force who is adjudged E-5 is unfit for further service in the force, the standing order providing for the contrary tentamounts to amending the Rules. In support of the submission that Rules cannot be amended by executive order, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1910, Balco Captive Power Corporation & Ors. Versus National Thermal Power Corporation & Ors. (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 234, paragraphs-31 and 35 and Ram Dutt - 3 - Pandey Versus The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2000(4) PLJR 262. 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the prayer. He states that Rules-11, 12 of the Rule does not provide for any minimum standards of eye sight for the members of the force, the authorities have supplemented the Rules by providing for minimum standard for eye sight under standing order No.4 of 2008 dated 15.12.2008, Annexure-6. Those members of the force who are adjudged category-5 in terms of the standing order have become unfit for being continued in the service of the force. He further submitted that in the light of the provisions of the standing order dated 15.12.2008 petitioner was examined by the doctors of the force not once but on two occasions and was adjudged medical category E-5 on both occasions. The last report in regard to petitioner is dated 10.4.2010, whereunder he has been adjudged as medical category-5 on the basis of the report of the Medical Board dated 31.3.2010. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union as also having perused the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder, I am of the views that in terms of the provisions contained in Section-18 of the Act the Central Government has been authorized to frame Rules to give effect to the provisions of the Act as also to regulate the service conditions of the members of the force. In the light of the legislative mandate the Central Government has framed Rules. Rule 11 of the Rules provides for enlistment standards giving the minimum standards with regard to - 4 - height, chest and age. Rule-12 provides for health certificate and states that no candidate shall be enrolled unless he obtains health certificate in the prescribed form CRP-I signed by the Medical Superintendent and Staff Surgeon of the CRPF Hospital. Rule-105 provides for appointment/promotion of superior officers. Petitioner who is holding the post of Head Constable(GD) is not a superior officer as has been defined in Rule-2(i) of the Rule, as such, minimum standards provided in Rule-105 has no application to him. He is covered by enlistment standards provided for in Rule-11 of the Rule, which does not provide for minimum standards in regard to ailments in eye sight, which has now been provided by the standing order No.4 of 2008 dated 15.12.2008 stating that those with defective colour vision will be categorized E-5 and are permanently unfit for the service in the force. The standing order, in my opinion, does not supplant the enlistment standards provided for in Rule-11. It only supplements the enlistment standards, as such, the standing order does not infract Rule-11 of the Rule. Petitioner having declared as medical category E-5 under report dated 10.4.2010 was rightly not recommended for undertaking the SUOCC course under order dated 17.4.2010, Annexure-2. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The writ application is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)