IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1742 of 2005 (S/S) Bijendra Singh and 09 others ...…………. Petitioners Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents ALONG WITH 2) Writ Petition No. 596 of 2006 (S/S) Devendra Dutt Nautiyal and 04 others ...…………. Petitioners Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents 3) Writ Petition No. 616 of 2006 (S/S) Dalgeet Singh and two others ...…………. Petitioners Versus State and others ...…………. Respondents 2 4) Writ Petition No. 679 of 2006 (S/S) Pankaj Kumar and nine others ...…………. Petitioners Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents 5) Writ Petition No. 1031 of 2006 (S/S) Vinod Mamgain and 15 others ...…………. Petitioners Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents 6) Writ Petition No. 1135 of 2006 (S/S) Yogendra Singh and another ...…………. Petitioners Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents 7) Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2006 (S/S) Jeendendra Rana and 11 others ...…………. Petitioners Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents 3 8) Writ Petition No. 1272 of 2006 (S/S) Kedar Singh Nainwal and another ...…………. Petitioners Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents 9) Writ Petition No. 1822 of 2007 (S/S) Mukesh Chandra Joshi ...…………. Petitioner Versus Director General of Police and others ...…………. Respondents Mr. Vijay Bhatt with Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Mr. Devendra Pant and Mr. M.M. Tiwari, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah Standing Counsel with Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Common question is involved in all these writ petitions, as such, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2) By means of these writ petitions, the writ petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to give them joining as Constable in police department of the State, in pursuance to the 4 selection process which took place in response to the advertisement dated 04.06.2005. 3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties in these writ petitions. [ 4) Brief facts of the case, giving rise to these writ petitions, are that in each District of Uttarakhand, certain number of vacancies of Constables fell vacant. Consequently, advertisement dated 4th June 2005 was published in the newspapers for recruitment of the Constables in the police department of the State. The petitioners, who passed the physical test as well as written test and whose names figured in the select list had to undergo, thereafter, the medical test. All the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions were found suffering from partial / complete colour blindness and they were not given the appointments on the post of constables in police department. Hence, these writ petitions. 5) Admittedly, condition No. 15 in the advertisement dated 4th July 2005, in pursuance to which selection process started requires that a candidate must be medically fit. Among other things, it requires that the candidate must be free from colour blindness. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to Clause 6(E) of Appendix ‘E’ of the Uttar Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1942, which provides that 5 inability to distinguish a particular colour will not be regarded as a case for rejection but the fact will be noted in the proceedings and the candidate would be informed. Relying on said provision, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners cannot be denied appointment, and at the most in their service book entry will be made in respect of the fact that the petitioners are colour blind. However, the Preamble as well as Rule 2, clause (l) of Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1942, makes it abundantly clear that the rules of 1942 are applicable to State Police Service of Class II i.e. Dy.S.P. / Circle Officers etc. It does not apply to the Constables of police. As such, the aforesaid provision of Rule referred on behalf of the petitioners is of no help to them. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners also drew attention of this Court to Section 2 of Police Act, 1861, and argued that the entire police establishment under the State Government for the purposes of the Act is one police force. However, this Court is of the view that it does not mean the Constables and Senior officers of the police have the same service conditions, or same educational qualifications, or same medical standards, for their recruitment in police force. 7) Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the medical reports of the petitioners and contended that except for the post of Drivers and Traffic police constables, the petitioners are not unfit. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to Para 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf 6 of the respondents in which it is stated that the petitioners were found partially colour blind and were unfit for driving the vehicle and for traffic duties, but fit for other duties. No doubt, their medical reports does indicate that medically the colour blindness is a disadvantage for the purposes of driving vehicles or to perform the duties of traffic police, but, the condition No. 15, mentioned in the advertisement was applicable to one and all, alike. As such, merely for the reason that petitioners are fit for some of the jobs in police department does not exempt from the condition No. 15 in the advertisement. 8) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that, though, the petitioners are not unfit for all kinds of jobs of the police, but they cannot be directed to be appointed as Constables, as they do not fulfill the condition mentioned in the advertisement viz. a candidate should be free from colour blindness. The condition in the advertisement was for one and all, who appeared in the recruitment process, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 4th June 2005. 9) Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that a similarly situated partial colour blind candidate named Lokesh Giri was given appointment in the police, but said candidate does not appear to be a candidate, who appeared in pursuance to the advertisement, in question. His medical report filed with the writ petition shows that he appeared in the examination of 2001 –02, and not in 7 pursuance to the impugned advertisement dated 4th June 2005, which contained condition No. 15, referred above. 10) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any force in these writ petitions. All the writ petitions are dismissed. (Application No. 10724 of 2006, moved on behalf of petitioner No. 8, namely Manoj Kumar, in connected Writ Petition No. 679 of 2006 (S/S) is allowed. The name of petitioner No. 8, Manoj Kumar be deleted from the array of parties in said writ petition). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.: July 07, 2008 H.Negi