Heard Mr. PKR Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Sarma, learned senior Central Govt. Counsel.

2. The present case relates to the petitioner, a Constable (GD) in the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF), who was released and discharged from service with effect from 31.1.2011 on being declared colour blind.

3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner had taken part in the selection process for selection to the post of Constable GD in the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (for short ‘ITBPF’). The petitioner was thereafter offered appointment to the post of Constable GD in the ITBPF vide Memorandum dated 6.6.2007 and it was stipulated in paragraph 6 of the said Memorandum that if the petitioner did not join by 9.7.2007, it would be presumed that the petitioner was not interested to serve in the ITBP and offer of appointment would be liable to be terminated.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner, thereafter, joined the post of Constable (GD) on 7.6.2007. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had undergone medical check-up during the selection process and even after joining of his post. In both the medical check-ups, the petitioner was found to be fit. The petitioner’s counsel also referred to the Annual Medical Check-Up Register of 2008, which shows that the petitioner’s eye vision is 6/6 BE and the petitioner was marked as fit in the said AMC Register of 2008. The petitioner’s counsel submits that subsequently in the year 2009, the petitioner was subjected to another eye test and the petitioner was thereafter declared to be colour blind on the basis of the opinion of one Dr. DK Verma on 22.5.2009, who was posted at Base Hospital ITB Police, Tigri Camp, New Delhi. The petitioner’s counsel submits that after the petitioner was declared to be colour blind, he accepted the fact that he was colour blind and did not prefer any appeal or file any representation against the finding of the Doctor that he was colour blind. The petitioner’s counsel submits that subsequent to the petitioner being declared colour blind, the petitioner was released and discharged from service with effect from 31.1.2011. He submits that the release and discharge of the petitioner from service on the ground that he is colour blind should be set aside as the disability of colour blindness that afflicted the petitioner occurred during his service period.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as per the Circular dated 30.10.2008 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, force personnel recruited with colour blindness and ignored at the time of recruitment cannot be held against them and they should be adjusted against suitable post, without their services being terminated.

6. Petitioner’s counsel submits that Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PWD Act, 1995’) states that disability includes blindness. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that as per the Section 47 of the PWD Act 1995, no establishment can dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. He also submits that as per the said Section 47, the disabled person can be shifted to some other post. Petitioner’s counsel further submits that no notification has been issued by the ITBPF organisation or the State respondents exempting the ITBPF from the purview of the PWD Act, 1995. The petitioner’s counsel thus submits that in view of the above, the PWD Act, 1995 would have to be applied in the case of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner’s counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reena Banerjee and another vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 725.

8. Mr. S Sarma, learned senior CGC submits that as per the section 26 of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994 (for short ‘ITBPF Rules,