The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Circular dated 28.05.2013 to the petitioner's recruitment and subsequent termination based on 'Defective Colour Vision'. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the circular and its impact on the petitioner's termination.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of orders dated 24.07.2020 and 16.12.2020; vide which he has been terminated from service.

2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to respondents inviting applications, he applied for the post of Constable in Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) and after being successful in the written examination; he appeared for medical examination before the Medical Board at FTR, HQR, SSB, Patna, wherein he was found unfit on the ground of 'Hydrosol Rt Testis'. However, the petitioner was re-examined by the Appellate Medical Board and was found fit for service and was accordingly selected in the recruitment process and provisionally appointed to the post of Constable/GD vide letter No.E-32023/ES/Appoint letter/Joint Recruit/ Constable-2011/ 2017-5963 dated 30.05.2014.

3. Further averred by the petitioner that he received a Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2016 alleging that he had suppressed the fact of having 'Defective Colour Vision' when he appeared for medical examination in Jaipur and got Shape-1 certificate. In his reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, petitioner stated that according his medical examination of the year 2015-16, he was in Shape-I category; that the report of Annual Medical Examination of the year 2015 was never supplied to him; and only by virtue of this Notice, he has been informed that he is suffering from 'Defective Colour Vision'. Thereafter, respondents vide order dated 24.10.2016 cancelled the confirmation of his probation period. In furtherance to Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2016, respondents vide order dated 02.02.2017 imposed penalty of deducing 03 days' salary and he was sent for medical examination on 29.09.2018, wherein the Medical Board placed him in Shape-2 category for a period of two years. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the Eye Board (RME) IG, Medical, Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharoda Kala and he was put under Shape-5 category.

4. Respondents thereafter issued another Show Cause Notice dated 09.03.2020 asking petitioner as to why his services be not terminated under Rule 25 sub rule (2) and Rule 26 sub rule (4) of the CISF Rules, 2001 for not furnishing correct information. Petitioner was also informed that his service condition is hit by Circular dated 27.02.2013 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs vide F.No.1-45024/1/2008-Pers.II, which stipulates that any person suffering from defective colour vision or colour blindness will not be recruited. In reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioner vide reply dated 25.04.2020 stated he has never violated any CISF Rules and the above said Circular dated 27.02.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs is not applicable to him, as he was recruited prior to coming of the aforesaid Rule in force. However, the respondents vide order dated 24.07.2020 terminated services of petitioner in terms of provision of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rule, 2001.

5. Being aggrieved by his termination, petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority, which was disposed of by respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.12.2020 by treating it as a representation. The afore-noted orders dated 24.07.2020 and 16.12.2020 are challenged in the present petition.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that by virtue of Circular No. I-45024/2/2013-Pers-II dated 28.05.2013, Ministry of Home Affairs has issued the guidelines for recruitment of CAPF which stipulated that the services of person recruited after 27.02.2013 and suffering from defective colour vision or colour blindness would be terminated. However, these guidelines would come into effect in prospective manner and since the petitioner was recruited in the year 2011; and the respondents first arbitrarily increased his probation period and thereafter, cancelled the confirmation of the probation period of petition