1 2025:CGHC:40477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1469 of 2022  Hemant Kumar S/o Shri Prakash, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Sahu Para Pipraud, Kanker Lakhanpuri, District Kanker, Pin- 494336 (Chhattisgarh), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training (Dopt), North Block, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. Staff Selection Commission Through Secretary-Cum-Controller Of Exams, Block No. 12, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3. Staff Selection Commission, Sub Revisional Office, Through Deputy Director, J-5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Central Reserve Police Force, Through The Director General, Block No. 1, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 5. Central Industrial Security Force, Through The Deputy Inspector General, Krtc Mundli, District Cuttak, Pin- 754013 (Orrisa), District : Cuttack, Orissa ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the respondents are directed to immediate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.13 14:59:49 +0530 2 reinstate the petitioner to the post of Forest Ranger with all consequential benefits including the promotion and salary on the higher post similarly situated employee services have been promoted from the date of similarly situated promotion of employee. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 dated 21.07.2018. She would further submit that the petitioner qualified for the written examination and physical examination, wherein he was found fit, even his eyesight was found perfect. She would also submit that later on, the order of appointment was issued on 21.06.2021. She would contend that, surprisingly, the services of the petitioner were discontinued vide order dated 06.07.2021 on the ground that the petitioner was found to have defective colour vision. She would further contend that the petitioner was re-examined by the medical board, and he was found to have defective colour vision. She would also contend that an appeal was preferred before the Government of India against the decision taken by the Medical Board, but till date, no decision has been taken. She would argue that the respondent authorities may be directed to constitute another medical board for re-examination of the eyesight of the petitioner and to decide his fate on the basis of the report of the said medical board. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents/U.O.I. would oppose. He would submit that the order of appointment was issued on 21.06.2021, and the petitioner was removed from services vide order 3 dated 06.07.2021. He would further submit that the petitioner was found to have defective colour vision by an ophthalmologist and further by the medical board, and therefore, he was removed from service. He would also submit that, as the petitioner was already examined by the medical board, there is no need for re-examination by the new medical board. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Perusal of the documents would show that initially, the petitioner was examined by the experts, including the eye specialist and his eyesight was found fit. Later on, in the review medical examination, he was found to have defective colour vision, and the report was affirmed by the medical board. There are two reports, one in favour of the petitioner and another against the petitioner; therefore, in the interest of justice, the respondent authorities are directed to constitute another medical board for re- examination of the petitioner’s eyesight and decide his fate on the basis of the opinion given by the said medical board. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant