JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent-State.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

3. Heard Mr. Devendra N. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP for the respondents - State through Video Conferencing. Perused the record.

4. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Category. He was selected for the post of Police Constable (Police Protector) in the Unarmed Police Constable Department. It appears that by a communication dated 18.8.2020 in pursuance to a certificate issued by the M & J Institute of Ophthalmology, the petitioner's candidature for being selected to the post was rejected on the ground that he had been declared as 'unfit'. This is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioner, therefore, was declared as unfit on account of he being a color blind.

5. Mr. Devendra Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue is no longer debatable in view of the decisions of this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 3739 of 2018 dated 8.4.2019, 3231 of 2020 and allied matter dated 10.2.2020, and 6671 of 2020 and allied matters dated 30.6.2020 as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1136 of 2018 dated 2.11.2018.

6. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State would rely on an affidavit-in-reply by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Surat City justifying the action of the respondent in declaring the petitioner as unfit. Relying on the contents of the affidavit, Mr. Desai would submit that the petitioner was required to undergo physical and eye examination to ascertain his fitness and he having been found with impaired vision as being color blind was rightly declared as unfit.

6.1. Reliance is placed on the amended the "Police Constable (Unarmed Branch), Class III in the Police Department Recruitment Rules, 2016. Considering the fact that the issue is no longer debatable as covered by the decision of this Court, this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3231 of 2020 and allied matters dated 10.2.2020 (Relevant paragraph Nos. 5 to 9) following the decision in the case of the petitioner in SCA No. 15431/2017 held as under:

"5. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 15431 of 2017 and allied matters considering the law laid down by this Court and the relevant provisions of Gujarat Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 2002 held in paragraphs no. 5.3 to 6.1 as under:

"5.3 It was unequivocally held that the colour blindness would not lead to disqualification from being appointed to the post of Unarmed Police Constable as under:

"9. A conspectus of the aforesaid rules and the requirement of the Appendix, would clarify that the same do not refer to colour blindness, which is treated as a predicament for the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Lok Rakshak. In the aforesaid rules, the colour blindness is not provided as a disqualification to the post to any Class III posts, indisputably the post of Lok Rakshak, for which the petitioners seek appointment falls under Class-III post. In Group 'A', which refers to "Armed and unarmed Police etc.", the requirement is "very high degree of visual acuity with unaided eye. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are having any myopic vision for which they require the aid of glasses. Their case will not fall under Group 'B' which refer to "a very high degree of vision of acuity with glasses and moderate degree without glasses". The posts under Group 'D' which refer to desk work also does not refer to colour blindness as a disqualification. Hence, it is ostensible that the respondents have acted contrary to the rules which govern their medical fitness."

5.4 The Court proceeded to rely on an Apex Cou