Poonam Srivastav, J- The instant writ petition is preferred on behalf of the three petitioners challenging the Orders dated 30th April, 2006 [Annexures-4, 4/1 and 4/2 respectively] terminating them on account of the reason that certain defective vision and colour blindness was detected in a subsequent medical examination and they were medically declared to be unfit.

2. The facts of the case are that in a recruitment drive for appointment on the post of Constables in Central Reserve Police Force, a written test, physical test and a medical test were conducted in Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand. All the three petitioners were declared successful in the written test and found to be up to the mark in the physical test and also medically fit to be appointed. Appointment letters were issued on 11th April, 2003 vide Annexures-1, 1/1 and 1/2 in respect of three petitioners namely Anil Kumar Das, Ravi Shankar and Prayag Das respectively.

3. The petitioners joined as Constables and completed their probation period of three years. During this period they were posted at a number of places. There was no complaint whatsoever regarding their functioning and discharge of duty. It is further submitted that on receipt of a complaint by the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, raising suspicion regarding medical examination of some of the selected

candidates, the Department got the Constables re-examined medically. The petitioner no. 1 was found deficient in vision and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were found to have some defects termed as 'Colour Blindness”. This medical examination of eye vision was conducted at Base Hospital-I, New Delhi. Notice for termination was served on the petitioners and after expiry 2of one month's period of notice, the petitioners were terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which is under challenge.

4. Shri Manoj Tandon, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has advanced a number of arguments. The first submission is that the petitioners have been subjected to discrimination. In support of this contention, he has placed a letter issued from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Sindri dated

16.02.2006 written to the Commandant 81/94/114/118Bn. The said letter details the date when the Constables were declared medically unfit and also their status as to whether they were confirmed or not.

Learned counsel has demonstrated that the three petitioners were appointed on 27th March, 2006 along with one other Abhay Kumar Singh. All the four of them were declared medically unfit on 9th September, 2006 but Constable No. 035172803 Abhay Kumar Singh-I of 94 Bn. was confirmed whereas, the present three petitioners, identically placed, were not granted the same benefits of confirmation though they had worked and completed period of probation simultaneously. Since Abhay Kumar Singh

mentioned aforesaid was a confirmed Constable, he is still continuing in Central Reserve Police Force though he was also declared medically unfit on account of colour blindness whereas, the present petitioners have been terminated on a one month's notice only because they were not confirmed.

It is emphasized that no reason has been assigned why the petitioners were not treated identically as Abhay Kumar Singh and different yardsticks were used for the petitioners while according confirmation and consequent continuation in service. The petitioners have been blatantly discriminated whereas, with the same disability as declared in the medical examination Abhay Kumar Singh continues to serve in the paramilitary force

i.e. C.R.P.F.. This document is the document of the respondents themselves and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has not been able to dispute this fact or the document.

5. The next argument is that the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a Circular/ Notification dated 31st July, 2002. The said Circula