IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF _
AND
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE A;.es.fi3oP._A1S:NA'e
WRXT APPEAL No.'3el§5-3.3/16-0V:'3
Between :
1.
rs; V
Sri Santhosh Kale" ' *
S/o.ShiVaram Kale, "
Aged Aboutefléi YearS',' - _ - '
Working {at :;;1n1t--e. Hq/180
J arnmu ' 8: «. _58", A_PQ_ ,»
A'
H,fNo.2'19,e.*V_,1st"i.Mair1,._' A
RQH.B.C01o12j7-;.fWhi'te Field Road.
Ma}1ad'eVapufa§' Post," " ' <
Banga1_ore,--56.0 048,3 Appellant
{B3} S'1*i.,:.I___M Umesh Murthy, Adv.)
India
A V 'Ministryof Home Affairs,
""-.NeW'De1hi
Reptd. by its Secretary
: The Director Genera}.
" 'Central Reserve Police Force [CRPF]
C.G.O. Complex,
Lodi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General [Personal]
Central Reserve Police Force {CRPF)
C.G.O. Complex,
Lodi Road, New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, ' V
CRPA, Bhopal
Madhya Pradesh
5. The Inspector General of Police L '
Eastern Sector, G'
C.R.P.F. H.C. Block,
Sector--HI, Salt Lake,
Ko1katta-- 106
6. The Commandant'«-G" _
No.l8O BN, :
C.R.P.F., C,'.o 56,:AF'O,:"A '- Respondents
{By_St'-i sa:a.sv§a{hy, cosc)
This file'd'"~under Section 4 of the
Karnatzaka HigE:t,C3_ourt'__p.raying to set aside the order
passed'_in._ the =Writ-_Petit,ion No.20616/2009 dated
14/ 10/2009. G n '
Trlis Wt-itV_,"Appeal coming on for Preliminary
«--,_Hearing---ithisp day,'C'hief Justice delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
C.J. (Oral)
pp p appellant applied for appointment against the
A postlof Sub–Inspector–General Duty (hereinafter referred
as “SI/GD”). His claim was however, rejected on
medical grounds because he was found to be “colour
3%?”
{T
blind”. it would also be relevant to mention here, that
the Claim of the appellantjfor appointment to the post of
“SI/GD” was in the Central Reserve Police«j”‘l,5o–rce,’
Dissatisfied with the order of his rejection,-jo’nVnjedicalff ”
grounds, the appellant, in the first”i’n-s.tan_ee,_,VapproVached-.A
this Court by filing WP No.2061f6/fi*.-‘._)lV_(f’)’l9.
writ petition came to be, dismissed by a ‘lea_rn”etl’VVSingle V
Judge on 14. 10.2009,.’lThrough”.theujln,_stanft appeal,
the appellant has by the
learned which, Writ
Petition the appellant was
dismissed. A” ”
2. During tb_efr~:ou,rse of hearing, learned counsel
~'”~.__for appellant ….. could not satisfy us, that the
Lconclusionireicorded by the authorities to the effect that,
he Was ‘fcoloiir blind” was not correct. In fact, an effort
‘g_to do sogwas made at the hands of the learned counsel
A “ll. appellant, by inviting our attention to Annexure–
Having perused A.r1neXure–J , it is not possible for us
to accept, that there is any mention therein to the effect,
that the appellant is not “colour blind”. As against the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents, has
handed over to us, during the course of hearing, a
photocopy of the report of the Review Medical
conducted in respect of the appellant, which-is ‘
record and marked as “Annexur–e.~A”-I__ wheVIrein,__j,on..
examination of the appellant onfithue
Medical Board has recorded’ ‘vité”5v.rCOr1.(V.)i”L1.Si0Ii _”tox”the”‘e’i”fect it
that appellant was indeed “co’1o1i_r:
3. In View of the ‘Ewe merit in the
instant writ}. is accordingly,
disrnissed, _ 1’
Sd/-
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Iudge
Sk/”=~–
. ,. _’ ‘ ._IndeX:~~ yes/no