S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The petitioner was in the services of the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the B.S.F.). In the extremist attack in Jammu & Kashmir State, he sustained bullet injuries resulting into complete blindness. He was declared 100% disabled. By the impugned order No. A 228/Estt-1/2004/33930-39 dated 31st December, 2004, he has been made to retire from service on the ground of physical disability, declaring him unfit for the services w.e.f. 31st December, 2004 under the cloak of Rule 25 of the B.S.F. Rules, 1969, whereas the petitioner claimed protection under the provision of "The Persons with Disabilities (equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act, 1995).

2. In the present case, the questions arise for determination are:

(a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get protection under Section 47 of the Disabilities act?

(b) Whether the impugned order of retirement dated 31st December, 2004 is illegal and arbitrary ? Relevant Facts:

3. The petitioner was in the services of B.S.F. He was appointed as a constable oh 25th May, 1986 and after training was sent to Punch border in Jammu & Kashmir State. On 24th May, 1991, while he was on patrolling duty at Copwara in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the extremists attacked on him and other members of the Battalion. Fourteen army personnel including the petitioner were injured. The petitioner sustained bullet injuries on his back, hand and both the eyes, resulting into 100% blindness. He was treated in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, where he was declared 100% blind on 11th November, 1993. However, his services were not dispensed with. Subsequently, the Disabilities Act, 1995 came into force. In view of provisions laid down under Section 47 of the said Act. By an Order No. A 186/CAS/estt-l/TC & S-98/8449-51 dated 23rd October, 1998, the petitioner was attached with the Administrative Wing of B.S.F. at Hazaribagh for Hindi typing.

4. In the impugned order dated 31st December, 2004, it has been mentioned that a Medical Board held on 27th September, 2604 which placed him in the medical category SiHtAiPiEs with 100% disabled and the said Board also considered him unfit for further service. But by the letter written by the petitioner dated 13th December, 2004 addressed to the Inspector General, B.S.F., C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi (Annexure-3), he has denied such fact and specifically stated that he has not been examined by any Medical Board nor he was given any information regarding any such report of a Medical Board. By the said letter, he also requested to supply a copy of the notice by which he was informed to appear before the Medical Board. It was alleged that on the basis of a forged report of so called Medical Board, steps were taken to retire him.

5. It may be mentioned that the Respondents by letter No. A-254/estt-1/2004/5098-99 dated 7th December, 2004 earlier informed the petitioner that on the recommendation of a Medical Board, they have decided to superannuate him from service. Having received the said letter, the petitioner had sent the said protest letter dated 13th December, 2004. The petitioner at Paragraph-17 to the writ petition has specifically denied any notice to appear before the Medical Board, but the Respondents have not controverted the said statement in reply to Paragraph-17 to the writ petition, the following statement has been made:

That in reply to para 17 of the writ petition, the answering respondents say and submit that it is an irony that the petitioner although is totally blind is demanding for retention in service whereas, it is well known fact that BSF Is in Armed Force of the Union and the personnel of this Force are to be deployed in difficult terrain and conditions in the Borders of the country and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has no locus standi.

6. The Respondents have enclosed a copy of t