IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.239 of 2010 DINESH KUMAR RAM S/O SRI VINDHYACHAL RAM R/O VILL DARAHPUR, P.O.CHURAMANPUR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTT-BUXAR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK , NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE , CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) C.G.O.COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE , CRPF BIHAR SECTOR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ,CRPF PATNA RANGE, PATNA 5. THE COMMANDANT 21 BATTALION, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTRE, MOKAMA GHAT, MOKAMA 6. THE COMMANDANT 21 BATTALION, CRPF SRI NAGAR ----------- 02. 04.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner who was appointed as waterman in the 21- Battalion of the CRPF is aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2009 passed by the Commandant of the battalion, Annexure-3, whereunder he has been held unfit for duty and boarded out form the battalion on the ground that he has become colourblind. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) disabled serving the force cannot be boarded out. Learned counsel further submitted that appreciating the aforesaid provision another Bench of this Court under orders dated 14.9.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.12050 of 2009, Annexure-4 has set aside the order of voluntary retirement of another member of the force, who was found medically unfit and learned counsel with reference to the aforesaid statutory provision and the orders of this Court dated 14.9.2009, Annexure-4 submitted that - 2 - this Court should also fall in line and set aside the order dated 18.10.2009, Annexure-3. 4. Counsel for the Union has opposed the prayer, according to him the CRPF is exempt from the application of the Act. 5. I regret not to accept such submission, as petitioner has alternative remedy before the appellate authority, namely, the D.I.G., CRPF petitioner should be well advised to challenge the impugned order dated 18.10.2009, Annexure-3 before the appellate authority. 6. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)