Delhi High Court: While hearing three writ petitions filed by petitioners who had been terminated from the post of constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) on grounds of being colour-blind, the Division Bench of *Subramonium Prasad, J and Vimal Kumar Yadav, J, held that the termination order was valid.
The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of the New Policy Guidelines on recruitment/retention in respect of Central Armed Forces (‘CAPFs’) and Assam Rifles (‘AR’) personnel having defective vision including colour blindness dated 27-2-2013 (‘2013 guidelines’) stating that the objective of the guidelines is to prevent the risk of injury at the hands of personnel who have defective vision or cannot distinguish between colours of the uniform.
Background
The Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) issued the 2013 guidelines that provided that no person found to have defective vision or colour blindness will be recruited in future. However, the guidelines were made applicable only prospectively implying that persons already recruited and found to be colour blind would not be booted out.
The petitioners had been recruited for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the CISF after participating in the recruitment process in 2015. The petitioner had qualified the physical standard test and had been declared ‘fit’ for service in his medical examination.
The petitioners had been appointed in probation for a period of two years during which if the candidate was found to be ‘unfit’ for permanent appointment, he could be terminated. After the petitioners reported at their respective training centers, a colour blindness test of all the candidates was conducted at the CISF Hospital, wherein the petitioners were found to be suffering from ‘defective colour vision’ and were accordingly terminated.
Aggrieved by the termination orders, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the termination orders and the constitutional validity of the 2013 guidelines.
Analysis, Law and Decision
With regards to the issue of constitutional validity of the 2013 guidelines, the Court noted that judicial review of policy decisions is open for only a very limited purpose: if the policy in question is capricious, arbitrary or offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In the instant case, the challenge against the 2013 guidelines was limited to the extent of violation of tents of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court considered the two-pronged test under Article 14 to determine the rational nexus of the policy with the object sought to be achieved.
The Court noted that the object of the 2013 guidelines was abundantly clear from a bare perusal of the guidelines which indicated that if a CAPF or AR is suffering from abnormal vision and is not able to distinguish between uniforms, there are risks of them being unable to protect themselves or their colleagues or adequately battle insurgents/terrorist groups. The prospective application of the guidelines is in departure of standing policy and public interest. However, the purpose of the 2013 guidelines was not only to bar candidates with defective vision/colour blindness from entering into the force but also to provide clarity regarding the prospective applicability of the same.
Considering the rationale and the possible adverse effects of recruitment of such personnel provided within the framework itself, the Court opined that the 2013 guidelines were not arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse and was therefore not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
With regards to the challenge against the termination orders received by the petitioners, the Court noted that at the time of termination, the petitioners were on probation and were not permanent employees of the CISF. The Court stated that,
“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 that the scope of judicial interference in case of probationers is much lower as compared to permanent employees who enjoy the protection afforded under Article 311 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found no mala fide intention on part of the medical professionals conducting the medical examination and therefore, there was no justification for interfering with their opinion.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2013 guidelines and rejected the petitioners challenge against the termination orders.
[Anjar Ali Khan v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 9556 of 2018, decided on 28-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar, Sourabh Mahla, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Rajesh Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Prasanta Varma, SCGC, Prahlad Devendra, Inspector, Gigi C George SPC, Sunil Kumar, Richu, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
