New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of CISF recruits who were removed during probation after being declared colourblind, ruling that the Union Government’s 2013 medical guidelines for Central Armed Police Forces are valid, reasonable and grounded in public safety. The court said it holds a constitutional duty to ensure that policymaking does not violate law or infringe fundamental rights, but noted that its power of judicial review is limited unless a policy is arbitrary or unconstitutional.
A Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav found that the 2013 Guidelines, which require boarding out colourblind personnel from CAPFs, were based on clear operational concerns. The court said the nature of duties performed by these forces demands the ability to distinguish colours in uniforms, signals and field environments, and any deficiency could risk the lives of personnel and civilians.
The judges observed that the Government had acted within its powers to restore uniformity after earlier inconsistencies in enforcing medical standards. They also highlighted that the guidelines apply prospectively, ensuring no vested rights were withdrawn in violation of constitutional protections.
A key factor in the ruling was the petitioners’ probationary status. The court held that probationers do not possess an inherent right to continue in service and that the purpose of probation is precisely to determine suitability, which includes medical fitness. It noted that the earlier judgments cited by the petitioners involved long-serving personnel or promotional issues, not newly recruited trainees who had completed only a few months of training.
Rejecting allegations of procedural unfairness, the court said there was no indication of mala fides in the medical examination process, stating that trained CISF medical professionals were well qualified to assess colour vision and overall fitness. The petitioners had also sought consideration for alternative posts not requiring perfect colour perception, but the court dismissed this argument since the recruitment advertisement was exclusively for the post of Constable (General Duty) and public appointments must strictly follow notified terms.
However, the court provided limited relief by allowing the recruits to submit individual representations to the CISF for posts where colour blindness does not act as a bar. It directed authorities to examine such requests within ten weeks.
Concluding the case, the High Court upheld the termination orders, dismissed the petitions and reaffirmed that the operational readiness of uniformed forces cannot be compromised. No order as to costs was issued.
