JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Sudhanshu Jha 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 respondents, refusing to appoint the petitioner on the post of Jail Sepoy/Lok Rakshak only on the ground that the petitioner had been declared unfit in medical examination.

5. Learned Advocate Mr.Jha 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 in the year 2016-17, 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 waiting/select list and the said waiting/select list has been in operation. Mr.Jha would submit that thereafter the petitioner was called for medical examination at Jamnabai General Hospital, Vadodara 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, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for further examination vide Communication dated 26.5.2017. It has been submitted that the Board of Referees had also opioned that the petitioner was unfit for the post in question on account of defective colour vision. Mr.Jha would submit that on the basis of the report of Board of Referees, the petitioner was declared unfit for the post in question only 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 No.2 had refused to appoint the petitioner on the post in question. It is submitted that the petitioner had received a communication from the office of the respondent No.2 to remain present on 15.10.2018 for taking his consent as to whether the petitioner was ready and willing to join service as Jail Sepoy, to which the petitioner assented his consent. Learned Advoate Mr.Jha 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.Jha 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