Court upholds termination of colour blind CRPF constable, cites force’s combatant role

“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.

Found colour blind after 2 years of service

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. 

Justice Kaushik Goswami 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.

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. 

Arguments 

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. 

Central Government Counsel K K Parashar, on the contrary, argued that, under the policy guidelines of 2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, colour blindness is a mandatory disqualification for recruitment as well as retention in the CRPF in respect of personnel recruited after the said policy came into force. 

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. 

Man undertaken in terms of policy guideline

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.