Delhi High Court upholds ban on recruiting colour blind candidates to Central Armed Police Forces, Assam Rifles

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) against recruitment of persons with defective vision, including colour blindness, to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and Assam Rifles (AR) [Anjar Ali Khan and Ors v Union of India and Ors]

The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav also upheld the termination of 13 probationers, recruited as constables in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), over their 'defective color vision'

The Court said that the object of the 2013 Guidelines is clear that if the personnel of CAPF or AR suffering from abnormal vision are not able to distinguish between uniforms, there are risks of them being unable to protect themselves or their colleagues or adequately battle the insurgents or terrorist groups.

“With the 2013 Guidelines chalking out the possible adverse effects of recruitment of such personnel, this Court is not inclined to deem the 2013 Guidelines as arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. As such, the challenge of the Petitioners to the 2013 Guidelines as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, fails," the bench ruled.

The petitioners before the Court were recruited in 2015. In the medical examination, they were found to be ‘fit’ for service.

However, while they were serving probation at their respective training centres, they were made to undergo a colour blindness test. The CISF hospital medicos found that the candidates had 'defective color vision'. Consequently, they were terminated by their commandants.

The petitioners first challenged the terminations in appeal under the CISF Rules. However, their appeals were dismissed in light of the 2013 rules. Thereafter, they moved the High Court to challenge the terminations as well as the rules.

Having upheld the rules, the Court noted that the petitioners were on probation when the decision was taken to terminate them.

“It is trite law that probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by the competent authority if found unsuitable. As such, there exists a distinction between termination of a probationer and that of a permanent/confirmed employee,” the Court stated. 

Further, the Court observed that the medical practitioners serving at CISF are best suited to decide on the medical fitness of the petitioners and that no mala fide intent was attributable to them. 

“This Court also does not see any shred of mala fide attributable to the concerned authorities with respect to any of the medical examinations or to the team of medical professionals conducting the medical examination. In the opinion of this Court, it is the medical practitioners of the CISF, who have themselves undergone the requisite trainings and are discharging the functions of the organization, who are best suited to form an opinion as to the medical fitness of the candidates to be recruited and once they have so formed their opinion, there can be no interference therewith, at the mere asking of a rejected candidate, more so who is a probationer,” it said.

Thus, the Court upheld the termination.

However, the Court also granted liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the CISF for being considered to be recruited to other posts.

"Upon receipt of such representations by the Petitioners, if any, the Respondents/CISF are directed to render their decision within a period of ten weeks from today," it ordered.

Advocates Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar, Sourabh Mahla and Rajesh Kumar Singh appeared for the petitioners.

Government counsel Prasanta Varma along with advocate Richu, Panel Counsel Arti Bansal with advocate Shruti Goel and Panel Counsel Gigi C George with advocate Sunil Kumar appeared for the Union of India. 

[Read Judgment]