ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Aaditya Bhatt on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Dharitri Pancholi on behalf of the respondent State.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

3. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges a decision of respondent No.3 of refusing to appoint the petitioner on the post of Armed Constable/Lok Rakshak only on the ground that the petitioner had been declared unfit in medical examination.

5. Learned Advocate Mr.Bhatt for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been selected for the post of Lok Rakshak through the process conducted by the respondent Authorities vide an advertisement published vide Advertisement No.PRB/ 201112/1 dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure-D), and whereas the petitioner had cleared both the written as well as physical examinations and after verification of all requisite documents, the petitioner had been placed in the provisional select list and the said select list has been in operation. Mr.Bhatt would submit that thereafter the petitioner was called for medical examination and he was declared unfit for the post in question on the ground of defective colour vision and the petitioner was referred to Board of Referees for further examination. It has been submitted that the Board of Referees had also opined that the petitioner was unfit for the post in question on account of defective colour vision. Mr.Bhatt would submit that on the basis of the medical report, the petitiohner was communicated that he was unfit for the post in question on the ground of defective colour vision. It further appears that since the petitioner had been declared ‘unfit’ on account of having colour vision deficiency, the respondent authorities had refused to appoint the petitioner on the post in question. Learned Advoate Mr.Bhatt would submit that the issue involved in the petition is no more res integra more particularly in view of the fact that a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court had been confirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench, and the said judgement has been consistently followed by various decisions of this Court. Insofar as delay in preferring the present petition is concerned, learned Advocate Mr.Bhatt would rely upon a decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Dipesh K. Ashok Vs. State of Gujarat in LPA No.538 of 2020 in SCA No.9199 of 2020, whereby Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge of having rejected the petition on the ground of delay more particularly, according to the Hon'ble Division Bench, though several such orders, related similar issue, were attached to the petition, the learned Single Judge had not considered the same and as such, undisputedly, since this issue of colour blindness is the only issue by virtue of which the appellant – petitioner was deprived of employment, the Hon’ble Division Bench were inclined to consider the case of the appellant. The Hon’ble Division Bench further observed that this issue has been well examined time and again and as such, simply because some delay has taken place at the instance of the appellant – petitioner would not be an impediment.

6. Learned AGP could not controvert the legal position inasmuch as this Court speaking through learned Single Judge as well as Hon'ble Division Bench has held that in absence of colour blindness not being one of the grounds as per the Rules based upon which the candidate could be disqualified. Learned AGP has argued on delay and as such contended that the petitioner who has been declared ineligible for appointment, seeks to challenge an order passed in the year 2016 and whereas since the same would be barred by delay, and therefore, it is requested that this Court may not consider the request of the petitioner.

7. Having regard to the s