Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010259162017 2026:GAU-AS:11766 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3723/2017 NOBIN KUMAR CHAKMA S/O JAGADISH CHAKMA R/O FLAT NO. 2, 2ND FLOOR, RASHMI ENCLAVE, SATGAON ROAD, PATHARQUARY, GUWAHATI VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS. REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE CRPF AN ORGANISATION UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS HEADQUARTER AT NEW DELHI. 3:THE IGP DEPARTMENTAL REHABILITATION BOARD OF BIHAR SECTOR- 2015 PATNA 4:THE COMMANDANT 11BN CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE LATEHAR JHARKAND. 5:THE DEPUTY POLICE INSPECTOR GROUP CENTRE 9TH MILE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI -23 Page No.# 2/9 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K MEDHI, P HAZARIKA,MR P BHARDWAJ,MR.A DAS,MR.R BAISHYA,MR.S R RABHA Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C., ASSTT.S.G.I.,MR.K K PARASAR(R- 1 to 5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 18.08.2026 Heard Mr. P Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parashar, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order of termination dated 04.05.2017 issued by the Commandant, 11th Battalion, CRPF, Latehar, Jharkhand, whereby the service of the petitioner as Constable (GD) in the CRPF came to be terminated. 3. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the selection process for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF, the petitioner submitted his candidature and participated in the selection process, including the written examination and interview. He was also medically examined and, thereafter, was duly appointed as Constable (GD) in the CRPF on 22.11.2014. The petitioner joined the 11th Battalion of the CRPF at Guwahati and was thereafter sent to Latur in the State of Maharashtra for undergoing training for a period of one year. Upon completion of his training, the petitioner was posted at F/11 BN, Central Reserve Police Force, located at Block Colony, Latehar, Jharkhand. While serving at the aforesaid place of posting, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2017, whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he had been Page No.# 3/9 detected to be suffering from colour blindness. The petitioner submitted his reply on 03.05.2017. However, on the very next day, i.e. 04.05.2017, the respondents issued the impugned order terminating his services. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, having been detected to be colour blind only after he had already served for almost two years since his appointment, ought not to have been boarded out from service. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner could have been retained and his services utilised against some other post where colour blindness would not constitute an impediment in the nature of duties required to be performed. It is contended that termination of the petitioner’s service, without exploring such an alternative, is unjustified. 5. Per contra, Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned CGC appearing for the respondents, submits that, at present, not a single post in the CRPF can be treated as a non- combatant post. It is submitted that even personnel performing ordinary functions are mandatorily required to undergo arms training so that, in the event of any emergency, they can be called upon to perform combatant duties. He further submits that under the policy guidelines dated 27.02.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, colour blindness is a mandatory disqualification for recruitment as well as retention in the CRPF in respect of personnel recruited after the said policy came into force. The petitioner, having been appointed subsequent thereto and having himself furnished an undertaking agreeing to be boarded out if found to be colour blind at any stage of his service career, cannot now seek to challenge the consequence prescribed under the said policy. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 4/9 7. It appears that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by order dated 27.02.2013, issued new policy guidelines on recruitment/retention in respect of personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assam Rifles (AR) having defective vision, including colour blindness. 8. The aforesaid policy guidelines read as under: “F.No.I-45024/1/2008-Pers.II Government of India / Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs / Grih Mantralaya (Police-II Division) North Block, New Delhi - 01 Dated, the 27th Feb. 2013 ORDER Subject: New Policy Guidelines on recruitment/ retention in respect of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assam Rifles (ARs) personnel having defective vision including colour blindness- regarding. The standing policy of the Government is that only persons who are fully fit in all respects i.e. in SHAPE-I are to be recruited to the CAPFs and ARs. It is and has always been the standing policy of the Government that if any member of the CAPFS & AR is declared permanently unfit while in service, he is boarded out from service. The reasons for this are very clear. The personnel of the CAPFs & AR are issued with lethal weapons and are expected to use lethal force against insurgents and terrorists. If any of the personnel of the CAPFS & AR is not fully fit, he will either not be able to protect himself or his colleagues in a battle with insurgents/terrorists. groups or he will run the risk of killing innocent people especially if his eyesight is weak and he cannot distinguish between uniform etc. The policy of boarding out personnel who had been declared unfit applies to all types of unfitness whether it be unfitness in physical parameters or in any other SHAPE component and that is how it should have remained. However, in the years 1991, 1997, 2002, 2008, 2011 and 2012, various orders were issued saying that those who had been recruited prior to a particular date and were found to be colour blind at a later stage, would not be boarded out while those recruited after the date would be boarded out. This marked a departure / an exception from the standing policy and this departure/ exception was not in the public interest- these departures were also bad in law because no policy could apply retrospectively. For the Page No.# 5/9 above reasons, it has been decided as follows:- i) The circular/orders/instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs or by any of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) & Assam Rifle (AR) vide communication No.R.II-31/91-EC-II dated 16.5.1991, No. R.II-31/97-EC-II dated 12.6.1997, No.1-45020/52/2001-Pers-II dated 17.5.2002, No.I-45024/1/2008- Pers-II dated 29.10.2008, No.45024/1/2008-Pers-II dated 11.3.2011 and No.45024/1/2008-Pers-II dated 08.12.2011 are withdrawn with immediate effect. Further, any reference to the colour blindness especially Para- 5 & 6 including those for the gazetted officers contained in New Visual Standard Policy No.I-45024/1/2008-Pers-II dated 18.5.2012 also stands withdrawn with immediate effect. (ii) Any person who has defective vision or is colour blind will not be recruited future. If any person is wrongly recruited despite having defect in vision or despite being color blind he will be promptly removed from service as soon as the defect is noticed. The Doctor who declared him fit will be proceeded against in Departmental Proceeding for major penalty The person who was wrongly recruited will not allowed to continue to take advantage of this wrong act, and the Govt. cannot be bound by the wrong act of any of its functionaries. (iii) It is however clarified that the present directions will only apply prospectively Those personnel recruited earlier and thereafter found to be colour blind will not be boarded out on account of color blindness. But it is reiterated that any person recruited herein after, if found colour blind even after recruitment shall promptly be boarded out of service. Keeping in view the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and in the public interest, the services of the colour blind personnel recruited prior to 18.05.2012 would be utilized for the jobs where public safety issues are not involved. Some of the posts/cadres identified for such personnel by CAPFs are enlisted in the Annexure-I. (iv) As the Color Blindness is a congenital disease, to obviate the induction of colour blind personnel in CAPFs & Assam Rifles by error by manipulation in any of the future recruitments, an undertaking shall be taken from all the selected candidates at the time of joining that if any stage of their service career, if they are found to be colour blind they will be boarded out as per the SHAPE Policy on vogue. 2 This issues with the approval of Union Home Secretary.” 9. A perusal of the aforesaid policy guidelines makes it clear that a person having defective vision or colour blindness is not eligible for recruitment in the CAPFs and Assam Rifles. The policy further provides that where a person is wrongly recruited Page No.# 6/9 despite having such defect, he is to be promptly removed from service as soon as the defect is noticed. The policy also specifically draws a distinction between personnel recruited prior to the policy and those recruited thereafter. In respect of personnel recruited after the policy came into force, it is expressly provided that if they are found to be colour blind even after recruitment, they shall promptly be boarded out from service. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 22.11.2014, i.e. after the aforesaid policy guidelines dated 27.02.2013 had come into force. At the time of his joining, the petitioner furnished an undertaking in terms of the aforesaid policy guidelines. The undertaking reads as under: “UNDERTAKING As per new policy guidelines issued vide MHA order No.F.No.I-45024/1/2008- Pers-II dated 27/02/2013, I hereby undertake that if at any stage of my service career, I am found to be colour blind, I will be boarded out as per the shape policy in vogue. Date: 22/11/2014 Nobin Kar Chakma Signature of Govt. servant F/No. 145/32849 Rank CT/90 Name Nobin kumar Chakma” 11. Thus, the petitioner had, at the time of his joining service, expressly undertaken to abide by the consequence prescribed under the policy in the event of his being found to be colour blind at any stage of his service career. The undertaking is categorical and leaves no ambiguity as to the consequence which the petitioner had agreed to accept. 12. It appears from the records that subsequently, in the year 2016, the petitioner was detected to be suffering from colour blindness. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Page No.# 7/9 13. It is also significant that the policy guidelines dated 27.02.2013 have not been challenged in the present proceeding. Consequently, the validity of the policy is not an issue before this Court. The question that arises for consideration is whether, in the admitted factual circumstances, the respondents were justified in applying the consequence prescribed under the said policy to the petitioner. 14. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner was appointed after the policy guidelines dated 27.02.2013 had come into force. Therefore, his case is squarely governed by the said policy. The policy expressly provides that any person recruited thereafter, if found to be colour blind even after recruitment, shall promptly be boarded out from service. The petitioner’s appointment in the year 2014, therefore, cannot be considered independently of the aforesaid policy. More importantly, the petitioner had furnished a specific undertaking accepting the said condition at the time of his joining. 15. The fact that the petitioner had already undergone training and had rendered service for some period before the defect was detected cannot, by itself, create a right in his favour to continue in service contrary to the governing policy. The policy itself contemplates a situation where colour blindness may be detected after recruitment and specifically prescribes the consequence in such a situation. Therefore, mere passage of time between the date of appointment and the date of detection of colour blindness does not take the petitioner outside the ambit of the policy. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been accommodated in some other post also requires consideration. The policy guidelines dated 27.02.2013 contemplate utilisation of colour blind personnel recruited prior to 18.05.2012 in jobs where public safety issues are not involved. However, that provision is specifically confined to personnel recruited prior to the said date. The petitioner, admittedly, was recruited in the year 2014 and therefore does not fall within the category of personnel to whom such alternative utilisation is contemplated under the policy. Page No.# 8/9 17. Nevertheless, in terms of this Court’s order dated 13.02.2025, Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned CGC, was directed to obtain instructions from the department as to whether the services of the petitioner could be utilised in any other post where colour blindness would not constitute an impediment in the discharge of the duties attached to such post. Pursuant thereto, the learned CGC has placed the departmental instructions before the Court by way of an affidavit dated 23.05.2025. The specific stand of the respondents is that, at present, not a single post in the CRPF can be treated as a non-combatant post. It has been stated that even personnel serving in ordinary functional posts are mandatorily required to undergo arms training so that, in an emergency, they may be called upon to perform combatant duties. According to the respondents, therefore, all posts in the CRPF carry operational requirements which make colour blindness an impediment in the discharge of the duties attached to such posts. In the absence of any material placed before this Court to demonstrate that an alternative post exists in the CRPF against which the petitioner can legitimately be retained notwithstanding the applicable policy, this Court cannot direct the respondents to create or identify a post for the petitioner contrary to the policy governing his service. 18. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the CRPF is an armed force entrusted with duties which involve, inter alia, the use of arms and deployment in situations requiring combatant functions. The policy decision of the competent authority prescribing visual standards for recruitment and retention in such forces cannot ordinarily be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the petitioner has not challenged the policy itself and has expressly undertaken to abide by its consequences. 19. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The Page No.# 9/9 petitioner was recruited after the policy guidelines dated 27.02.2013 came into force; he was subsequently detected to be colour blind; he had expressly undertaken that if found to be colour blind at any stage of his service career, he would be boarded out in accordance with the SHAPE Policy and the respondents have also placed before the Court their position that there is no alternative non-combatant post in the CRPF in which the petitioner can be retained. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 04.05.2017. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant