Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav upheld the termination of probationary CISF constables who were found to have defective colour vision during training and rejected the challenge to the 2013 Ministry of Home Affairs policy governing recruitment and retention of colour-blind personnel. The Court held that the policy was constitutionally valid and that probationers had no vested right to continue in service when found medically unfit. The petitions, which sought to invalidate the guidelines and set aside the discharge orders, were dismissed, though the Bench permitted the individuals to submit representations for consideration against non-combat posts where colour blindness is not a disqualification.

The petitions were filed challenging termination orders issued to individuals recruited as Constables (General Duty) in the CISF pursuant to a 2015 recruitment advertisement. After qualifying the Physical Standard Test, written examination, and initial medical examination in which they were declared fit, they were appointed on probation for two years and directed to undergo basic training. During training, a colour blindness test was conducted at the CISF Hospital, where they were found to have defective colour vision. They were then referred to the Deputy Inspector General/Director Medical for a Review Medical Examination, where they were again declared unfit due to defective colour vision. Based on these findings, the respective Commandants terminated their services under Rule 25 of the CISF Rules, 2001.

Also Read: Clicking Photos Of Woman Not Engaged In Private Act Not Voyeurism Under Section 354C IPC: Supreme Court

The petitioners filed statutory appeals under Rules 46 and 47 of the CISF Rules, which were rejected in light of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Policy Guidelines dated 27.02.2013 concerning recruitment and retention of CAPFs and Assam Rifles personnel with defective vision, including colour blindness. They thereafter filed writ petitions seeking to quash the 2013 Guidelines and the termination orders.

Their submissions included arguments that earlier judgments concerning colour-blind personnel created protections, that termination after several months of training was impermissible, that the cut-off dates in the 2013 Guidelines lacked intelligible differentia, that the termination was punitive and contrary to legitimate expectation, and that their earlier medical fitness should prevail.

The respondents submitted that the petitioners were still probationers, that colour blindness posed operational risks in a force handling weapon, that a previous coordinate bench had already upheld similar termination orders, and that candidates had furnished undertakings admitting consequences if false medical declarations were discovered.

The Court recorded the jurisprudential framework governing judicial review of policy decisions, referring to the Supreme Court’s statement that “administration has been entrusted by the Constitution to the executive, not to the court” and that “all life, including administrative life, involves experiment, trial and error.” It stated that courts must respect constitutional boundaries and maintain “the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint.”

The Court observed that when State action is challenged, “the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution… while exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority.” It further recorded that “courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.”

Regarding the 2013 Guidelines, the Court noted that the Government had explained the risk posed by personnel with defective vision who handle lethal weapons, recording that “if any of the personnel… is not fully fit, he will either not be able to protect himself or his colleagues… or he will run the risk of killing innocent people especially if his eyesight is weak and he cannot distinguish between uniforms.” It also stated that earlier deviations from the standing policy were “not in the public interest” and that the 2013 Guidelines “will only apply prospectively.”

The Court observed that the object of the 2013 Guidelines had a rational nexus to public safety, noting that the policy mandated that “any person who has defective vision or is colour blind will not be recruited in future.” It recorded that the guidelines clarified that “those personnel recruited earlier and thereafter found to be colour blind will not be boarded out… but any person recruited hereinafter, if found colour blind even after recruitment shall promptly be boarded out of service.”

Turning to the petitioners’ status as probationers, the Court stated that probation is intended “to judge the ability, suitability and performance of an officer under probation,” and that probationers have “no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed.” It recorded that earlier judgments cited by the petitioners related to personnel long in service and concerned promotion-related circulars, not direct recruitment.

The Court observed that there was “no shred of mala fide” in the medical examinations and that CISF medical practitioners were best placed to determine fitness. It also stated that recruitment must strictly follow the advertisement, noting that considering petitioners for non-technical posts “would have resulted in impinging the Respondents/CISF having gone beyond what was prescribed in the 2015 Advertisement.”

The Court stated that “for the reasons stated above, coupled with the finding that the 2013 Guidelines are not unconstitutional, the Petitioners’ challenge to the termination orders also fails.” It recorded that although the contention was not urged specifically, it was necessary to examine whether the petitioners could have been considered for any posts other than Constable (General Duty). The Court noted that the advertisement applied only to the post of Ct/GD and that recruitment must be held strictly in accordance with the advertisement.

Also Read: Non-Examination Of First Investigating Officer Not Fatal If Place Of Occurrence Is Otherwise Proved: Patna High Court

The Court held that “in the interests of justice,” it would be “appropriate to leave it open to the Petitioners to file separate representation(s) with the Respondents/CISF, requesting their candidatures to be considered for posts that do not consider color blindness as a disability.” It directed that “upon receipt of such representations by the Petitioners, if any, the Respondents/CISF are directed to render their decision within a period of ten weeks from today.”

“With the above observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of,” and that “Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar, Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advocates; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Prasanta Varma, SCGC; Ms. Richu, Advocate; Insp. Prahlad Devendra; Ms. Arti Bansal, SPC; Ms. Shruti Goel, Advocate; Mr. Gigi C George, SPC; Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate; Mr. R L Meena, Dy Commandant; Mr. S K Bharti, CISF.

Case Title: Anjar Ali Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10764-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9556/2018 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav