[2025:RJ-JP:486-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 161/2024 Kapil Son Of Shri Thana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Pilani Khurd Via Bissau, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Cisf Krtc, Mundali, District Cuttak (Odisha), 7540413. 3. Ig/director (Medical) Crpf, Composite Hospital, New Delhi. 4. Commandant, Cisf, Cisf Unit- Ntpc Dadri, Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.p. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aveesh Mourya For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG with Mr. Sumit Tetarwal Mr. Devesh Yadav HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 06/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. Having lost in the writ petition, the appellant seems to have filed review petition coming out with entirely new case of earlier policy having been substituted by a revised policy/guidelines with regard to medical test to assess color blindness. The appellant came out with entirely new case in the review petition, even then we have gone through the record of the review petition as also [2025:RJ-JP:486-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-161/2024] revised policy/guidelines. There is nothing in the review petition and the revised policy/guidelines that the same were in force at the time of initiation of the process of recruitment. 3. Admittedly, the appellant was subjected to medical examination in the year 2021. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that revised guidelines ought to have been made a basis to conduct medical examination and assess suitability cannot be accepted. Revised guidelines could not be applied retrospectively to direct reassessment and medical examination of a candidate who was already subjected to medical examination as per the then existing eligibility criteria. 4. Learned Additional Solicitor General would also highlight that the earlier policy was later on reintroduced. 5. We are not inclined to further go into the matter as in our opinion, no case for interference is made out on the basis of a policy said to have been framed after the recruitment and much after the examination of the appellant. Moreover, we also find that learned Single Judge had again directed the appellant to be reexamined and the Medical Board again found the appellant suffering from defective color vision. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of duty and function required to be performed by a Constable in CISF, we find ourselves unable to give any relief to the appellant. 7. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Gaurav/04