The court established that colour blindness detected during a medical examination, which was not caused by an injury during service, cannot be considered a disability acquired during service, and therefore the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act did not apply.

JUDGMENT

HARINATH N., J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings order dtd. 8/4/2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of termination was rejected. The petitioner was terminated vide orders dtd. 7/2/2011 passed by the Commandant of CISF.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 27/7/2010 and he was on probation for a period of two years. Soon after completing six and half months of training the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dtd. 7/2/2011 terminating the petitioner from services.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal.

4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Orders of termination were passed by 2nd respondent whereas the Appointing Authority is the 6th respondent. As such claims that the 2nd respondent has no authority to issue the termination orders.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 25 of CISF Rules, 2001 do not whisper about defective Colour Vision as a Disqualification for continuation in Service and as such the petitioner ought not to have been terminated by invoking Rule 25.

6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authority ought to have extended the benefits and Sec. 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995.

7. The respondents have filed a counter and the learned Central Government Counsel submits that the service of the petitioner were rightly terminated. It is submitted that the petitioner was sent for annual medical examination, 2010 under SHAPE Category to ONGC Hospital, Surat on 27/9/2010 and the Medical Officer found him with defective Colour Vision.

8. The petitioner was sent for Re-medical check-up at AMI EYE Hospital, Surat and the Medical Officer there found him Colour Blind for Red and Green Colour of both eyes. As per the rules and regulations of CISF the petitioner's case was referred to Medical Examination which was to be conducted by the Standing Medical Board. On 21/12/2010 the Standing Medical Board declared him unfit for service in CISF. In pursuance of the said declaration the services of the petitioner were terminated.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Ch.S.Rajeswara rao Vs. Govt., of A.P. rep.by Principal Secretary, Transports Department and others, 2022 Live Law (AP) 123 and submits that this Court has directed the respondent/corporation therein to pay full salary to the petitioner therein for the period during which he was not in service. It is also submitted that this Court has also considered the relevant provisions Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995.

10. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances of the present case and it is also pertinent to state that the provisions of the Act would be applicable for an employee who suffers disability during the course of employment.

11. The colour blindness which was detected when the petitioner was subjected to medical examination cannot be construed as a disability which occurred on account of discharging the duties. Colour Blindness is generally inherited through the genes of the parents or due to physical or chemical damage to the eye.

12. It is not the case of the petitioner that the colour blindness deficiency detected during the course of medical examination was on account of any injury while in service to the eye or the optic nerve of the eye. The Medical Board also has not noted about any injury which could have caused colour blindness to the petitioner. Sec. 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 would be applicable for an employee who acquires disability during his service. As such, the petitio