IMPORTANT POINT
The Court affirmed that unconfirmed employees can be terminated based on medical fitness standards, as per the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. S. R. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners, in the present proceeding have challenged the orders dated 25.05.2018, by which, the petitioners were terminated from their services as Constables, General Duty (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) by invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) of “the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules 1965”.

3. The petitioners, herein, in pursuance to a process of recruitment, were selected for appointment as Constable (GD) in the CRPF. The petitioners, at the time of their recruitment were subjected to medical examination and therein, the petitioner no. 1 was found fit in all categories and with regard to the Vision, he was placed at Color Perception-III (CP-III). The petitioner no. 2 was also found to be fit in all respects in such medical examination and with regard to Vision, he came to be placed at category CP-II. The petitioners, thereafter, were sent to Recruit Training Centre, Rajgir, Bihar, on 27.06.2017; for undergoing the basic training. The petitioners while continuing with their trainings, on a suspicion arising with regard to the petitioners suffering from Color Blindness, a board of Medical Officers, consisting of 3(three) Ophthalmologists was so constituted and the petitioners were examined by the said board from 21.08.2017 to 23.08.2017. The board having concluded that the petitioners were suffering from Color Blindness and they having been so placed in category CP-IV, held them to be unfit for the service. The Principal of the Recruit Training Centre, Rajgir, Bihar, vide communication dated 29.08.2017; returned the petitioners to the Group Centre, CRPF at Silchar. Thereafter, the authorities of the Group Centre, CRPF, Silchar, vide a communication dated 10.10.2017; forwarded the medical board report in respect of the petitioners, herein to the Headquarters for further clarification. The Headquarters, vide the communication dated 21.03.2018, on noticing the deficiencies as noted in respect of the petitioners, herein, proceeded vide communication dated 21.03.2018, to direct the Group Centre, CRPF, Silchar to terminate the services of the petitioners, herein by invoking Rule 5(1) of the “Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules 1965”.

4. In terms of the said directives as passed by the Headquarters, as well as basing on the medical report, the Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Silchar vide notice of termination of service dated 25.04.2018; intimated the petitioners, herein, that their respective services shall stand terminated w.e.f. the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which, the notice was served on them or, as the case may be tendered to them.

5. On conclusion of the period of one month, vide orders dated 25.05.2018, the Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF Centre by invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the said Rules of 1965, proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioners, herein,w.e.f. 25.05.2018.

6. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said orders dated 25.05.2018, proceeded to prefer individual representations, both dated 25.07.2018; praying for a review of the decision and for their re-allocation against any other suitable post, including the posts of Trades-men or, any non-combatant role instead of boarding them out from their service in the Force.

7. The said appeals as prepared by the petitioners, were returned vide the communications, both dated 25.05.2018; issued by the Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Silchar by observing therein that he was not competent to review the cases of termination of service and accordingly, the appeals as preferred were being returned to the petitioners, herein. The petitioners have not contended to have thereafter preferred appeals before the competent authority.

8. Being aggrieved by the termination as effected in their cases, vide the order dated 25.05.2