- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3112/2010 1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Special Inspector General of Police, Nanded Region, Nanded. 2] The Superintendent of Police, Parbhani. ...Petitioners.. Versus 1] Jagannath s/o Gorakhnath Bhosale, age 23 yrs., occu.education, r/o Suhagan Tq.Purna Dist.Parbhani. 2] Ambadas s/o Sundarrao Chavhan, age 21 yrs., occu.education, r/o Selu Tq.Selu Dist.Parbhani. ...Respondents... ..... Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for petitioners. Shri Hemant Surve, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 24.09.2010 - 2 - PER COURT : 1] Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment and order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.935/1999 thereby allowing the original application filed by the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein. 3] The respondent nos.1 & 2 were selected as Police Constables. They were required to approach Civil Surgeon for medical examination. The Civil Surgeon found them to be unfit. As such the respondent nos.1 & 2 were referred to the Medical Board. Vide order dated 21.1.2009, the Medial Board found both the respondents to be fit. It appears that being not satisfied with it, the District Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, referred the matter to the Board of Referees. The Chairman of Board of Referees vide communication dated 26.5.2009 opined that though the respondent nos.1 & 2 were in a position to identify blue, red and green colors, they can not identify the mixture of red and green colors. As such, the respondents were denied the opportunity of being appointed. Being aggrieved thereby, the Original Application was filed by the respondents and the same was allowed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners herein challenging the order of the Tribunal. - 3 - 4] Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, learned AGP on behalf of the petitioners, submits that since vide communication dated 17.2.1999, the Board of Referees has found that the respondents fall in the category of partially colour blind, the learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the Original Application. 5] Shri Hemant Survey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 2, submits that the learned Tribunal has given sound and cogent reasons, which warrant no interference. 6] On perusal of record, it reveals that the learned Tribunal has found that the Medical Board has found the respondents to be fit. We have personally examined copies of opinion given by the Medical Board dated 17.1.2009 and that of Board of Referees dated 17.2.2009. The said opinion given by the Board of Referees consisting of three experts would reveal that both the respondents on examination were found fit to perform the duties of Police. Not only this, but the communication dated 17.2.2009, on which reliance is placed by the learned AGP, reveals that the earlier opinion given by the Medical Board was in accordance with the prescribed rules. In that view of the matter, no error could be found with the finding given by the learned Tribunal. 7] It is needless to state that when the Board of Referees consisting of three experts has opined regarding the fitness of the respondents, no authority including - 4 - the learned Tribunal or this Court can sit in appeal over the opinion of experts. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Needless to state that the appointment orders be issued in favour of the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c2491023