ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the decision of the respondents of declaring the petitioner unfit for the post of Lok Rakshak Unarmed (Male) on the ground of the petitioner suffering from the defect of colour blindness.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Vyas would submit that this Court vide decision dated 21.02.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 20605/2023 and allied matter had decided a similar issue more particularly where the advertisement was of the year 2017 and whereas considering that the advertisement in the present case is of the year 2016, the said decision would otherwise is squarely applicable.

4. This Court has perused the said decision and is in agreement with the submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Vyas.

5. Having regard to the same, paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced herein-below for benefit:

“3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Vyas, it would appear that the issue is no more res integra. It would appear that this Court in various decisions, starting from Special Civil Application No. 8707 of 2016, vide order date 26.12.2016 and Special Civil Application No. 7595 of 2013, vide order dated 11.07.2018 which have been confirmed by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1136 of 2018, vide decision dated 02.11.2018, have taken the view that the State was precluded from denying appointment to the petitioners to the post in question on the ground of medical incapacity since the relevant rules did not prescribe color vision deficiency as being a disqualification for appointment to service.

3.1 It would appear that while the petitioners after being selected have been sent for medical examination and whereas in the medical examination, the petitioners have been declared unfit on account of having color vision deficiency, yet it would appear that since the relevant rules i.e. Appendix-A of Appendix-(3) under Rule-11 of GCSR which lays down the preliminary visual standards for all services, does not envisage color vision deficiency as incapacity for service to the post in question, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to deny appointment to the present petitioners. Relevant observations of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1136 of 2018 as referred is relied upon for benefit.

“8. Adverting to the merits of the controversy, viz., whether on account of suffering from the defect of colour blindness, the appellants herein can be said to be disqualified for the post of Lok Rakshak.

9. A perusal of the record of the case reveals that vide communication dated 29.08.2012, the Additional Police Commissioner (Administration), Ahmedabad city requested the Civil Surgeon, Sola Civil Hospital that the candidates for appointment of unarmed Lok Rakshaks had been sent to them for the purpose of medical examination in terms of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Part-II, Appendix VII, rule 3 and calling upon them to refer the candidates for further examination to the Board of Referees, Civil Hospital and send medical fitness certificates accordingly. Thus, the authorities have placed reliance upon rule 3 of Appendix VII of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The Bombay Civil Services Rules have since been repealed by the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 2000; however, rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 2000 which provides that certificate of physical fitness is a prerequisite for substantive appointment or continuance in service is in pari materia with the Bombay Civil Services Rules. Annexure-A of Appendix III under rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 2000 also lays down similar conditions as the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Chapt