J U D G M E N T

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. Both the aforesaid writ petitions raise common questions of law. The first issue raised in these petitions is whether appointment to the rank of Sub Inspector (Exe) in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short “CISF”) by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short „LDCE‟) is appointment by promotion or by direct recruitment. The second issue which arises and which is an offshoot of the first issue is as to whether the Respondents have prescribed different medical standards for eligibility of candidates to the same post, i.e., for those selected from the feeder cadre for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector in the same organization and for those selected through LDCE for the same rank.

2. The facts in both the petitions are identical. Both the Petitioners are currently posted as Constables on General Duty in the CISF and claim to be fit in all respects. Both aspire to be Sub Inspectors and for the aforesaid purpose appeared in „LDCE‟ for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Exe). Pursuant thereto, they appeared in the written examinations and after duly qualifying the same appeared in and cleared the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) as well as the interview. Their respective names figured amongst the persons selected for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Exe) subject to their medical fitness. When they underwent medical examination, however, they were shocked to learn that they had been declared medically unfit on the ground of „Sub Standard Vision‟, even though they had continued to be in Medical Shape-I in each of the Annual Medical Checkups which they had undergone as Constables in the CISF.

3. Subsequently, the Petitioners submitted appeals to the Inspector General for being examined by the Review Medical Board. The Petitioner in WP(C) No. 1938/2011, namely, Constable Ajay Pandey was examined by a Review Medical Board on 14.03.2011 where his distant vision was found to be 6/6 but apparently for the reason that he had undergone a laser surgery he was once again declared medically unfit.

4. The Petitioner in WP(C) No.5421/2011, namely, Constable Ravinder Lamba on receipt of the letter dated 6th January, 2009 wherein it had been stated that he was having „Sub Standard Vision‟ submitted appeal to the Inspector General and requested for holding Review Medical Board. The case of the Petitioner though was sent for Review Medical by the Inspector General, the concerned Medical Officer got adamant and resorted to rebuking the Petitioner for making such a request. Thereafter, inspite of several requests to subject him into proper list, no proper test was ever conducted and the Petitioner was again declared unfit. It was then that the Petitioner got his eyes tested again from Guru Nanak Eye Centre (a Delhi Government Hospital), All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and Safdarjung Hospital and again requested the Respondents to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Sub- Inspector as he was not suffering from any vision defect. The prayer of the Petitioner was not acceded to and the Petitioner thereupon filed Writ Petition No.1966/2010 titled as “Ravinder Lamba vs. UOI and Ors. in this Court which was disposed of on 20.12.2010 with directions to the Respondents to have the Petitioner examined by the Medical Board in Army Hospital R&R and thereafter take appropriate decision. Accordingly, the Petitioner was again examined by a Board of the said hospital on 11.01.2011 but was again declared medically unfit on the ground that his unaided Visual Acuity was 6/9 both eyes and he had already undergone lasik surgery for correction of the refractory errors of the eyes. The Petitioner, however, subsequently got himself examined from RML Hospital on 16.03.2010 where he was declared fit with uncorrected Visual Acuity 6/6 both eyes.

5. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1938/11, namely, Constable Ajay Pandey was subjected to a medical examination on 19.11