CWP No.14795 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 4.3.2010 Nasib Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RKS Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): In response to the advertisement dated 24.5.2006 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner applied for the post of Executive Constable in general category. As many as 3700 posts were advertised. 475 vacancies were in districts Sonipat, Rohtak and Jhajjar. The petitioner was called for physical measurement. He successfully cleared the physical measurement test and was called for physical efficiency test like race, long jump, high jump etc. He also qualified all the physical efficiency tests. The petitioner was allotted registration No.1802 on completion of the selection process. When the select list was declared, the petitioner was selected at serial No.32 of the select list. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for medical examination. He was medically found fit. His medical examination also shows his eye sight as 6X6, but with colour blindness. On account of the colour CWP No.14795 of 2009 2 blindness, the petitioner was declared unfit for appointment as Constable vide order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P-3). It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. In the reply filed by the respondents, similar objection is raised that the petitioner was found unfit on account of colour blindness. It is stated that the petitioner is required to perform general duties in the Haryana Police/Traffic Police. It is stated that there is no direct recruitment for the Traffic Constables in the Haryana State and the deficiency i.e. colour blindness with which the petitioner is suffering, he cannot perform duty in traffic police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the rules prescribed only 6X6 eye sight for Constable and colour blindness cannot be a ground for rejection of the petitioner on medical grounds. In the reply also, the respondents have not shown as to whether the colour blindness can be considered to be a ground for medical unfitness. The only ground taken in the written statement is that the petitioner is also required to serve in the Traffic Police, so he should not be of colour blindness. No rule or regulation or instructions have been brought on record in this case by the respondents in support of their plea raised above. Apart from the above, the issue has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Satya Prakash Vasist, 1994 Supplement (2) SCC, 52, wherein the following observations have been made:- CWP No.14795 of 2009 3 “The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the expression “shall be free from colour blindness” is applicable both to sub-clauses (I) and (ii) of clause (a) and not merely to sub-clause (ii). It is on this basis that the learned counsel for the appellants supported the non-appointment of the respondent on the ground that he was colour blind. We are unable to accept this contention. Reading the above extract as a whole, it is clear that the requirement that the candidate should be free from colour blindness is only for the post of Drivers and traffic staff in sub clause (ii) and that does not apply to sub-clause (I) relating to Constables, Head Constables and Sub- Inspectors (Executive). It is obvious that the disqualification of colour blindness has no application to sub-clause (iii) and this was rightly not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. In such a situation, the applicability (sic inapplicability) of the disqualification of colour blindness to sub- clause (I) is further supported by the fact that CWP No.14795 of 2009 4 the other expression “Visual acuity (both eyes) 6/12 without glasses” is repeated identically in sub-clause (I) also even though it finds place in sub-clause (ii). If the words “shall be free from colour blindness” appearing in sub-clause (ii) were applicable also to sub-clause (I), the other expression “Visual acuity (both eyes) 6/12 without glasses” would not have been repeated in sub-clause (I) when it finds place in sub- clause (ii). That apart, there is clearly discernible basis for the disqualification of colour blindness for persons appointed as Drivers and traffic staff, the nature of whose duties are different from that of a sub Inspector (Executive). The only contention advanced in support of the appellants cannot, therefore, be accepted.” The above said case has been followed by this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.13338 of 2008) decided on 29.04.2009. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.08.2007 (Annexure P-3 ) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the basis of selection within a CWP No.14795 of 2009 5 period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be entitled to seniority on the basis of the merit adjudged in the selection process, though no financial benefits will be allowed to the petitioner. The salary of the petitioner shall be, however, fixed by giving notional benefits of increments etc. 4.3.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE