W.P.(C)--879/2018. Case: ABHILASH KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--879/2018 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | October 16, 2018 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:- Date of Decision:- 16
+ W.P.(C) 879/2018
ABHILASH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Satyendra Kumar with Tiwari, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J
JUDGMENT
-
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the of India has been preferred by the 16 petitioners assailing termination from the CISF vide orders dated 04.09.2017
08.09.2017. The petitioners have also assailed the order
08.01.2018, vide which the appeal against their termination has rejected by the respondent no.2/Inspector General (IG), CISF.
-
The brief facts as culled out from the record are that pursuant an advertisement issued in January, 2015 by the respondents, petitioners had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the Upon qualifying the Physical Standard Test, the petitioners
appeared in the Written Examination in which they were successful. After undergoing the Medical Examination in May, wherein they were found ‘fit’, the petitioners were selected offered the post of Constable (GD) in the CISF as per the merit published in February, 2017.
-
Based on their selection, the petitioners were appointment letters on 15.03.2017 and directed to report at respective Recruitment Training Centres for basic training. The of appointment issued to the petitioners clearly specified that would be on probation for a period of two years. It transpires after the petitioners reported at the training centres, a Blindness Test of all the recruitees, including the petitioners was conducted at the CISF Hospital of the respective
Training Centres, wherein they were found to be suffering defective colour vision. However, before taking any action terminate their services, the petitioners were re-examined by a Review Medical Board held between 26.07.2017 to 31.07.2017 at Composite Hospital, CRPF Jharoda Kalan, where they were again declared ‘unfit’ due to defective colour vision.
-
Based on the aforesaid findings, the services of the were terminated vide the impugned letters dated 04.09.2017
08.09.2017, under Rule 25(ii) of the CISF Rules.
-
Aggrieved by their termination, the petitioners had preferred appeal before the respondent no.2/ Inspector General (IG),
Thereafter, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.10247/2017, complaining of the in-action on the the respondent no.2/ Inspector General (IG), CISF in deciding appeal. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction respondents to decide the petitioners’ pending appeal by detailed and speaking order within a period of eight weeks. respondents had accordingly, vide the impugned order
08.01.2018, rejected the petitioners’ appeal, leading to the filing of the present petition.
-
Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the submits that the action of the respondents in terminating the of the petitioners after having appointed them on being medically fit in the initial...
To continue reading
Request your trial