The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police, District Ambedkar Nagar to reinstate a constable who was dismissed on account of colour blindness.
A single-judge bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Om Prakash Chaudhary.
The facts of the case are that petitioner was recruited on 01.09.2006 on the post of Civil Constable after following due selection procedure along with medical examination. He was sent for training for a period of 9 months and after completing his training, he was posted as Constable in District Ambedkar Nagar. In pursuance of Circular dated 29.06.2007 issued by Director General of Police, all the police personnel recruited in the recruitment process of 2004 to 2007 were directed to be reexamined by the Medical Board.
The petitioner was re-examined on 31.08.2007 and was found to be colour blind. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order dated 12.09.2007 passed by opposite party no 5/ Superintendent of Police, District Ambedkar Nagar.
The petitioner challenged the said termination order before the Court at Allahabad by filing the petition.
The same was decided vide order dated 14.07.2016. In the aforesaid writ petition, it was directed that the petitioner may make a representation before the opposite party no 4/Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar and the same will be decided by the said authority. In pursuance of which petitioner preferred representation, the same was rejected by impugned order dated 05.09.2016 passed by opposite party no 4.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders cannot survive in the eye of law for the reason that earlier the petitioner was recruited and the recruitment procedure was followed including the medical examination, petitioner was directed to complete 9 months training and after completing his training, he was appointed to the post of Constable. Once the appointment was done after following the due procedure of selection, it is not open for the respondents to say that the petitioner is suffering from colour blind.
Vinod Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submitted that the case of the petitioner is slightly different because in the case of Pawan Kumar Singh (supra), the employees had worked for sufficient period whereas the services of the petitioner was dispensed with within six months after his posting.
He further submitted that the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Pawan Kumar Singh (supra) therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention towards the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in Writ Petition.
He has submitted that Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section 33 of Act, 1955 provides “reservation of posts” that one percent post shall be reserved for persons suffering from; (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy; in the posts identified for each disability. Chapter-VII of the Act,1955 deals with “affirmative action” and Section 47 of the Act, 1955 provides nondiscrimination in Government employment.
A bare perusal of Section 47 of the Act, 1955, it is clear that service of a Government employee shall not be dispensed with, or reduced in rank, who acquires a disability during his service.
Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was not suffering from the colour blind disease when he was recruited, therefore, his service cannot be dispensed with on the ground of aforesaid disease.
“The arguments advanced by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel regarding length of service have no legs because the question of period in appointment will not be seen. The petitioner after completing his training of nine months, was posted as Constable and once he was posted meaning thereby whatever disability he occurred during his service after appointment the length of service will not make any difference,” the Court observed while allowing the petition.
“The orders dated 03.10.2014 and 12.09.2007 passed by respondent no 5/ Superintendent of Police, District Ambedkar Nagar are quashed.The respondent no 5 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Constable with 50% back wages along with consequential benefits,” the Court ordered.
The writ petition had prayed the following reliefs:-
“A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 03.10.2014 whereby the respondents have declared the petitioner colour blind and have subsequently imposed the punishment of dismissal from service( Annexure no 1 to the writ petition)
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 12.09.2007 whereby the respondents have dismissed the service of the petitioner after declaring him colour blind which occurred to the petitioner after his coming into service( Annexure no 2 to the writ petition)
C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Constable in Civil Police along with all consequential benefits w.e.f 2007 accruing thereto.”