JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.04.2018 whereby the petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of on examination of his eyes, it was found that there was defect in eyes, the petitioner’s appointment as Lokrakshak was cancelled. The petition was amended subsequently by way of amended prayer, the petitioners has also prayed to direct the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner at any post in administration.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Niraj Sharma for the respondent – State.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2016 an advertisement for the post of unarmed Police Constable (Lokrakshak) was published and pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post and on clearing the necessary exam,, he was appointed as Unarmed Police Constable and his name figured at Sr. No. 34 in the select list.

4. Once the petitioner cleared the examination and necessary training was taken for that. The petitioner was appointed as Unarmed Police Constable vide appointment order dated 18.05.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner’s medical examination took place on 15.11.2017 and upon examination the petitioner was declared unfit, however, no reason was given for the same and therefore, based upon the aforesaid medical report, the petitioner’s service was terminated vide order dated 27.04.2018 against which the petitioner made a representation but the same was not considered positively and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayers which are referred hereinabove.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it is not sufficient for the respondent - Authorities to terminate the petitioner’s services merely by stating that he is unfit. The medical certificate must state the reason as on what ground the petitioner has been declared unfit and it must not merely state that there is some defect in his eyes. She submitted that earlier in similar set of facts when the petitioners has cleared the examination and yet they were denied the appointment on the ground of color blindness, the Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the aforesaid orders and directed those persons to be appointed in the within some bound scheduled by protecting their intervening period.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in case of Shaikh Tahirhusain Mohmmed Hanif V/s Lokrakshak (Constable) Recruitment Board and other dated 26.12.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 8707 of 2016, in case of Dineshbhai Govindbhai Kathechiya V/s. State of Gujarat Through Secretary decided on 26.04.2018 Special Civil Application No. 7638 of 2013 and common oral order dated 26.07.2018 in case of Mihirkumar Arvindbhai Barot V/s. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City in Special Civil Application No. 15431 of 2017 and allied matters.

7. By relying upon the aforesaid judgments, she submitted that in all those decisions, the Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the orders whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground of colour blindness. She submitted that in the instant case, since no reasons were assigned at the time of terminating the service of the present petitioner, it was duty cast upon the respondent – Authorities to state the reason as on which ground the services of petitioner is sought to be terminated.

8. She submitted that the first order terminating the services of the petitioner merely states that since as per the report by the Civil Surgeon, Ophthalmology Department, Ahmedabad and as per his certificate, the petitioner was declared unfit, his services were terminated vide order dated 27.04.2018. She submitted that at the relevant point of time, no reasons were assigned pursuant to the order dated 14.02.2019, it was left to the petitioner to approach Civil Hospital and c