THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION (TR) No.5369 of 2017

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the rejection order of the respondent No.4 in Rc.No.1162/2009/ P&E/A1, dated 25.07.2015 and seeking to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently, to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Prohibition and Excise Constable on the basis of merit secured by him at the time of selection, on the basis of fitness certificate issued by the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital authorities in preference to the claims of other less meritorious candidates who have been appointed, with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of O.A.No.7156 of 2015 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), are that the petitioner was eligible for the post of Prohibition and Excise Constable. He had participated in the selection process and was provisionally selected. However, during the medical examination by the Medical Board, he was held to be suffering from colour blindness. Therefore, the petitioner was referred to the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, for review. In the certificate given by the hospital authorities, it is mentioned that the petitioner is fit for employment. However, the respondent No.4, vide proceedings dated 25.07.2015, rejected the provisional selection of the petitioner on the ground that the certificate given by Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital does not mention whether the individual possessed required visual standards or not as per G.O.Ms.No.950 dated 28.11.1998. The impugned order also refers to the visual standards required for both left and right eyes as near vision 0.5 (snellen) and distant 6/6. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the rejection order dated 25.07.2015 before the Tribunal. Later, after abolition of the Tribunal by the Government of Telangana, the said O.A. has been transferred to this Court and it is renumbered as W.P.(TR) No.5369 of 2017.

3. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital authorities has been filed by the respondents along with the counter affidavit and from the said report, it is clear that the visual standards of both eyes have been mentioned in the said certificate, but the respondents have not considered the same and have rejected the case of the petitioner without any reason.

5. The learned Government Pleader, however, has relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in support of the impugned order. It is submitted that with regard to the colour blindness, the medical certificate refers to missing three plates and therefore, according to him, the petitioner could not qualify in the visual test.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the initial and only objection of the respondents has been that the petitioner is suffering from colour blindness. Therefore, the petitioner has been referred to the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, which has given a report that the petitioner has been able to identify the primary colours and also that he was fit for employment. The said medical certificate, which was filed along with counter affidavit at page-21, also mentions the visual standards of the distant and near vision of both eyes. It is noticed therefrom that the petitioner possessed necessary visual standards as per G.O.Ms.No.950 dated 28.11.1998. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner did not suffer either from the visual standards or from colour blindness and he was declared as fit for employment. The respondents are therefore required to consider the case of the petitioner for