Md. Iseel Khan v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 16 Sep 2011 · 2011:DHC:16426-DB
Pradeep Nandrajog; Sunil Gaur
W.P.(C)6780/2011
2011:DHC:16426-DB
administrative petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that CRPF personnel medically cleared at recruitment cannot be discharged years later on grounds of color blindness detected subsequently, upholding prior judicial precedent.

Full Text
Translation output
$-8,9.10 & 11 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)6780/2011
MD. ISEEL KHAN Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anilendra Pandey, Mr.R.K.Ranjan & Ms.Priya
Kashyap,Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravinder Marwah,Advocate
W.P.(C)6781/2011
MUSHTAQ AHMAD DAR Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents ¥
W.P.(C)6782/2011
P.PONRAMCHANDRAN Petitioner
VERSUS
UNIION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents W.P.(C)Nos.6780/2011,6781/2011,6782/2011 &6783/2011
2011:DHC:16426-DB
W.P.(C)6783/2011
RANJIT CHETRY Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aniiendra Pandey,
VERSUS
UNIION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
16.09.2011
ORDER

1. The petitioners were recruited in CRPF on dates after 17.5.2002 and were subjected to a thorough medical examination, which included the eyes being checked. None of them was detected with colour blindness. Now after having served for a number of years, respondents are threatening to discharge the petitioners on account of they being detected with colour blindness.

2. The aforesaid issue which arises in the instant writ petitions had arisen in a batch of writ petitions which were decided on 22.3.2011. Lead matter being W.P.(C) No.5077/2008 titled 'Sudesh Kumar Vs. UOI & Another'.

3. It was held that force personnel of CRPF who were subjected to medical examination and no colour blindness was detected W.P.(C)Nos.6780/2011,6781/2011,6782/2011 &6783/2011 2 and thereafter were given employment cannot be thrown out on account of stated colour blindness. Of the many reasons, one reason was that these persons have now become over age for public employment.

4. The decision dated 22.3.2011 has not yet been challenged before the Supreme Court and thus holds the field as far as this Court is concerned. ^ 5. ^ Accordingly, the captioned writ petitions stand disposed of prohibiting the respondents from discharging/invalidating ^ petitioners from service on account of stated colour blindness. It is clarified that the writ of prohibition issued is self-limiting to the point of time where, if respondents challenge the decision of this Court dated 22.3.2011 and orders to the contrary or orders staying the operation of the said decision are obtained from a superior court.

6. No costs. C.M.No.r3660/2011.C.M.No.l3661/2011.C.M.No.13662/2011 & /£- CM No.13663/2011

1. Disposed of as infructuous since the writ petitions have been decided and prayer made in the applications is for interim stay.

2. Dasti. iri PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG,J NIL GAUR,J SEPTEMBER 16, 2011