Delhi HC upholds termination of CISF recruits for colour blindness, says policy not arbitrary

"It is a constitutional obligation of the Court to examine that in the framing of policy, no law is violated, nor are people's fundamental rights transgressed..." With this principle, the Delhi High Court on has dismissed the petitions filed by CISF recruits who were terminated during probation after being found colour blind.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petitions filed by CISF recruits who were terminated during probation after being found colourblind. "It is a constitutional obligation of the Court to examine that in the framing of policy, no law is violated, nor are people's fundamental rights transgressed," the Court said. The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that the Union Government's 2013 Guidelines, which mandate the removal of colour-blind personnel from Central Armed Police Forces, are valid, constitutionally sound and not arbitrary.

The Court noted that judicial review of policy is limited and may be invoked only where the policy is capricious or violates fundamental rights. The Court observed that the 2013 Guidelines were framed on clear and rational grounds, recognising that personnel in CAPFs operate under hazardous conditions and must be able to distinguish uniforms and signals to avoid endangering themselves, colleagues or civilians.

It found that the policy had a direct nexus with public safety and that the Government was justified in restoring consistency after earlier departures from the standing rule of boarding out unfit personnel. The Court also recorded that the Guidelines expressly apply prospectively, preventing any unconstitutional withdrawal of vested rights. It therefore refused to deem the policy arbitrary or unreasonable.

A significant aspect of the judgment was the petitioners' probationary status. The Bench held that probationers do not enjoy an indefeasible right to continue in service and that the purpose of probation is to assess suitability, including medical fitness. The Court distinguished earlier judgments cited by the petitioners, explaining that those cases involved long-serving personnel or promotional disputes, whereas the present petitioners were newly recruited trainees who had undergone only a few months of training.

The Court further found no trace of mala fides in the medical examination process. It emphasised that CISF medical professionals, being trained and experienced, were best equipped to determine medical fitness. The petitioners also argued that they should have been considered for alternative posts that did not require perfect colour vision. The Court rejected this plea, noting that the recruitment advertisement was exclusively for the post of Constable (General Duty) and that public appointments must strictly adhere to the notified terms.

However, in the interest of fairness, the Court allowed the petitioners to submit individual representations to CISF seeking consideration for posts where colour blindness is not a disqualification. It directed the authorities to decide such representations within ten weeks. Concluding the matter, the Court upheld the termination orders, dismissed all writ petitions and granted no order as to costs. It reiterated that the 2013 Guidelines are legally valid, that termination of probationers for medical unsuitability is lawful, and that operational readiness of uniformed forces cannot be compromised. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)