The Gauhati High Court recently upheld the termination of a CRPF constable after he was found to be colour blind in 2016, nearly two years after he joined the force, noting that he had given an undertaking at the time of joining that he would accept such a consequence. The court also pointed out that it cannot direct them to create or identify a post for the man contrary to the policy governing his service.
Justice Kaushik Goswami dismissed the man’s plea challenging the termination order and held that the CRPF is an armed force entrusted with duties which involve the use of arms and deployment in situations requiring combatant functions.
“The fact that the petitioner had already undergone training and had rendered service for some period before the defect was detected cannot, by itself, create a right in his favour to continue in service contrary to the governing policy. The policy itself contemplates a situation where colour blindness may be detected after recruitment and specifically prescribes the consequence in such a situation,” the August 12 order read.
The high court further clarified that mere passage of time between the date of appointment and the date of detection of colour blindness does not take the man outside the ambit of the policy.
The man was challenging the termination order issued in May 2017 by the 11th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which terminated his service as a constable. The man, after going through the selection process, was appointed as a constable (GD) in the CRPF in November 2014 and joined the 11th Battalion of the CRPF at Guwahati and was later sent to Maharashtra to undergo training for a period of one year. Upon completion of his training, the man was posted in Jharkhand.
During this posting, the man was served with a show-cause notice in April 2017, seeking his response as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he had been detected to be suffering from colour blindness. The man submitted his reply, but the CRPF issued the termination order. Aggrieved, the man moved the high court with this plea.
The man was represented by advocate S K Medhi, who submitted that his client was detected to be colour blind only after he had already served for almost two years since his appointment, and should not have been boarded out from service. He argued that the man could have been retained and his services utilised against some other post where colour blindness would not constitute an impediment in the nature of duties required to be performed. It was argued that termination of the man’s service, without exploring such an alternative, is unjustified.
The man, having been appointed subsequently and having himself furnished an undertaking agreeing to be boarded out if found to be colour blind at any stage of his service career, cannot now seek to challenge the consequence prescribed under the said policy, the counsel argued.
He added that at present, not a single post in the CRPF can be treated as a non-combatant post. It was submitted that even personnel performing ordinary functions are mandatorily required to undergo arms training so that, in the event of any emergency, they can be called upon to perform combatant duties.
The high court noted that the policy guidelines clearly provide that a person with defective vision or colour blindness is not eligible for recruitment in the CAPFs and the Assam Rifles. It was further noted that the policy provides that where a person is wrongly recruited despite having such a defect, he is to be promptly removed from service as soon as the defect is noticed.
Noting that the man was appointed in November 2014 after the said policy guidelines had come into force, the court found that at the time of his joining, the man furnished an undertaking in terms of the said policy guidelines.
The court held that the man had, at the time of his joining service, expressly undertaken to abide by the consequences prescribed under the policy in the event of his being found colour blind at any stage of his service career. “The undertaking is categorical and leaves no ambiguity as to the consequence which the petitioner had agreed to accept,” it added.
The court noted that the validity of the policy has not been challenged in the present proceeding and found that CRPF has pointed out that even personnel serving in ordinary functional posts are mandatorily required to undergo arms training so that, in an emergency, they may be called upon to perform combatant duties.
“According to the respondents (authorities), therefore, all posts in the CRPF carry operational requirements which make colour blindness an impediment in the discharge of the duties attached to such posts,” it noted.
Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express (Digital), where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More
