The central legal point established in the judgment is that the service of a government employee shall not be dispensed with or reduced in rank if they acquire a disability during their service, as per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Himanshu Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed the following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated 05.08.2016 and 12.09.2007 passed by respondent authority (Annexure No.1 and 2 to the writ petition)

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstated the petitioner in service on the post of Constable in Civil Police alongwith all consequential benefit with effect from 2007."

3. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was recruited on 01.09.2006 on the post of Civil Constable after following the due procedure of selection alongwith medical examination. He was sent for training for a period of 9 months and after completing his training, he was posted as Constable in District Ambedkar Nagar. In pursuance of Circular dated 29.06.2007 issued by Director General of Police, all the police personnel recruited in the recruitment process of 2004 to 2007 were directed to be re-examined by the Medical Board. In pursuance of aforesaid circular, the petitioner was re-examined on 31.08.2007 and it was found by the Medical Board that the petitioner was suffering from colour blind. Thereafter the services of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order dated 12.09.2007 passed by opposite party no.5/ Superintendent of Police, District Ambedkar Nagar. The petitioner challenged the said termination order before this Court at Allahabad by filing Writ-A N.31555 of 2016 ( Mohd. Naseem Vs. State of U.P. and others). The same was decided vide order dated 14.07.2016. In the aforesaid writ petition, it was directed that the petitioner may make a representation before opposite party no.4/Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar and the same will be decided by the said authority. In pursuance of which petitioner preferred representation, the same was rejected by impugned order dated 05.09.2016 passed by opposite party no.4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders cannot survive in the eye of law for the reason that earlier the petitioner was recruited and the recruitment procedure was followed including the medical examination, petitioner was directed to complete 9 months training and after completing his training he was appointed on the post of Constable. Once the appointment was done after following the due procedure of selection, it is not open for the respondents to say that the petitioner is suffering from colour blind.

5. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that case of the petitioner is slightly different because in the case of Pawan Kumar Singh ( supra), the employees had worked for sufficient period whereas the services of the petitioner was dispensed with within six months after his posting. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Pawan Kumar Singh (supra) therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention towards the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No 3500(SS) of 2015 (Ali Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 16.12.2016. He has submitted that Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (herein after referred as 'Act, 1955"). Section 33 of Act, 1955 provides "reservation of posts" that one percent post shall be reserved for personas suffering from; (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy; in the posts identified for each disability. Chapter-VII of the Act,1955 deals with "affirmative action" and Section 47 of the Act, 1955 provides non-discriminatio