IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No.3924 of 2008. Date of decision: 25.8.2010 Kamlesh Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: M/s.Onkar Jairath and Vijay Verma, Advocates. For the respondents: Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 11.11.1996 (Annexure A/2) whereby it was found that the petitioner was unfit to be a Constable since he was suffering from colour blindness. The petitioner challenged this order and on 6.12.1996, the following order was passed in the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal:- “Pending admission reply within four weeks. Sh.P.M.Negi, learned Assistant Advocate General 2 waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. In the meanwhile, Annexure A-2 be not given effect to till further orders. If his services have not already been terminated and the applicant may be allowed to continue his training.” The petitioner continues to be in service on account of this order. The respondent-State initiated the process for filing up the post of constable in various districts. The petitioner was called for ground test, physical test, written test and personal interview in the month of April, 1996. He was sent for medical examination at District Hospital. He was medically examined by the Medical Board headed by the Chief Medical Officer. This medical examination was conducted in the month of May, 1996. The petitioner was allocated constabulary number. He submitted his formal joining report at the Police Lines. He was sent for recruit training at Police Training College, Droh. He was medically examined by the doctor. The petitioner was declared suffering from colour blindness. He was further examined by the Medical Board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer. He was found suffering from colour blindness. He was served with a memo dated 11.11.1996. 3 He approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that he was thoroughly examined at the time of his initial recruitment and similarly situate persons have been given relaxation by the respondents. The petitioner has strongly relied upon a judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal in O.A No.17/1986 decided on 1.9.1988 whereby similarly situate persons were granted relief. The case of the respondents, in nutshell, is that ingredients of the colour vision have been made mandatory vide Annexure R-1. Mr.Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that his client was found medically fit at the time of initial recruitment and similarly situate persons have been granted relaxation by respondents. In other words, his case is that his client cannot be treated differently. Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the discharge orders of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 4 The petitioner qualified the ground test, physical test, written test and personal interview. He was medically examined at the time of initial recruitment. It was only at the time of recruit training that it was found that he was suffering from colour blindness. There is no manner of doubt that the finding that the petitioner is suffering from colour vision has been confirmed by the Board also. The question is how does it affect the working of the petitioner? In the present case, the petitioner due to the order dated 6.12.1996, quoted hereinabove, has remained in service and I have been informed at the Bar that the petitioner has also done Commando Course between 9.11.1998 to 30.1.1999. The petitioner on the strength of the above order has been working for almost 14 years. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner is found suitable to do the work of Constable, he shall be continued as such. In case, for any reason, it is found that due to this deficiency in colour vision, he is unable to perform his duties properly, his services shall not be terminated but he 5 shall be offered some other post in the Police Department itself having the same scale of pay but a post where the deficiency in colour vision is not a bar to service. If the petitioner has been working for 14 years, it is for the respondents themselves to adjudge whether this colour blindness has in fact, in any way impaired his suitability as a constable or not. It is made clear that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case where the petitioner has continued in service due to the interim orders for the last more than 14 years and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs. August 25, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge