AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bist, J.
CLMA No. 8557/10 (Stay Application)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, after undergoing the selection process, were appointed on the post of A.S.I. (M) in CRPF on 18.07.200, 14.02.1995 and 20.11.1995 respectively. At the relevant point of time when the Petitioner were appointed, the post of A.S.I. (M) was a ministerial post and not ranked as �Combatized Ministerial rank�. All the Petitioners, at present, are posted at Kathgodam. It is the assertion of the Petitioners, banking on reliance on the Circular dated 16th May, 1991, that at the time of their recruitment in service, colour blindness was not a condition precedent for disqualification for enlistment in CRPF for the ministerial staff. Relevant portion of the Circular is quoted as below:
Colour blindness will be a disqualification for entry in CRPF in respect of the Executive, Technical and Trade cadres including MH. However, colour blindness will not be a disqualification for the Hospital Staff, Ministerial Staff and Followers.
It is the contention of the Petitioners that they were appointed under the category of Ministerial Staff A.S.I. (M) and in the appointment letter of the Petitioners it was also mentioned that colour vision will not be applicable for disqualification and, accordingly, Petitioners were found medically fit. Grievance of the Petitioners is that on 29th October, 2008, a Circular was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Pers.-II), in which it is mentioned that ''if any person with colour blindness has been selected by chance in the past, considering the requirement of the CPFs and in the interest of the person, he or she should be boarded out on account of physical disability''. Against this Circular dated 29th October, 2008, the Petitioners moved representation, which has been rejected vide order dated 28th June, 2010. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners are in apprehension that they can be removed from service at any time, which is apparent from the order impugned. Moreover, declining to give promotion to the Petitioners on the post of S.I. (M) is also in violation of the Circular dated 16th May, 1991, which was prevailing at the time of entering in service. Argument of the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners is that at the time of entering in service, colour blindness was not the disqualification for a candidate for recruitment in the CPFs. and the Petitioners were taken in service after they were found medically fit, but now the Respondents cannot remove the Petitioners on the ground of colour blindness, which was not a disqualification at the time of entering in service. Such action is in violation of promise made by the Respondents at the time of giving appointment to the Petitioners. He further submitted that the Petitioners are working as Ministerial Staff. The nature of work, which is being performed by the Petitioners, is not being affected in any manner due to colour blindness. He argued that the proposed action of the Respondents is not only illegal but also against the assurance, which was made at the time of their recruitment.
At this juncture, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Respondents prays some time for seeking instructions. As prayed for, four weeks time is granted to her for filing counter affidavit. List this petition in the week commencing 29th November, 2010.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on examining the documents annexed with the petition, as an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of listing, the Petitioners shall not be removed from service in pursuance of the impugned Circular letter dated 29th October, 2008.
Stay application (CLMA No. 8557/10) stands disposed of.