Post Of Water Carrier Constable In Police Force Not A Technical Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Writ Court, whereby the State was directed to issue a consequential appointment order in favour of the Petitioner (Respondent in Appeal), along with other benefits.

The Petitioner's case was that he had participated in the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board for various posts in the Police. He had qualified for the second stage i.e. physical test, wherein he was declared physically fit and therefore, he was required to undergo medical examination.

He was not found fit in by the District Medical Board and so he submitted a representation to Regional Director of Health Services, Indore and requisitioned for medical examination before the Divisional Medical Board. He was directed to appear before the Divisional Medical Board. After examination, he was again not found to be fit on technical ground.

His contention before the Writ Court was that he was fit for the post of Constable (Water Carrier) therefore, in light of GOP No.137/2012, the Appellants were required to issue the appointment order in his favour.

The State submitted that they have not denied the selection of the Petitioner for the post of Constable (Water Carrier). It was argued that he did not fulfill the minimum physical qualification required for the post, citing Clause 2.5 of GOP dated 30.07.2012, whereby 'a candidate must possess vision intensity of 6.9 without glass and 6.12 for the second eye without glass and the candidate should also not be colour blind.' It was further submitted that the the Petitioner was not found to be fit by the Divisional Medical Board.

It was argued by the State that the finding of the Writ Court that that the post of Water Carrier is not a technical job, ran contrary to the training syllabus of the Constable (Trade Man). State submitted that according to the training syllabus, the Constable (Trade Man), which included the post of Water Carrier, is required to undergo training of firing and arms training and therefore, GOP No.137/2012, which provides for minimum qualification for vision, is required to be followed.

The State also submitted that the Special Armed Force is called for emergency duty and to maintain law and order situation, and that in such situations, the duties are assigned to the employees of the cadre of trade constable including Washerman, Cook, Water Carrier, Tent Carrier, Cobbler, Barber Electrician, Sweeper etc.

It was further submitted that at any point of time, if the occasion arises, the aforesaid employees including trade constables are required to use weapon (gun), for which clear vision is essential. In the present case, the State contended, it was very clear from the report itself that the Petitioner was suffering with deficiency of colours and in these circumstances, he was not fit for the technical job and for the post of Constable (Water Carrier) as well.

Per contra, the Respondent/Petitioner submitted that the post of Constable (Water Carrier) could not be treated as technical job and that the Medical Board also did not say that he was not fit to work as Constable (Water Carrier), though he was not selected for technical job. He also submitted that as per the qualifications prescribed in M.P.Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1973') in Rule 22(v), there is no provision regarding colour blindness. To support his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Satya Prakash Vasisht and Mohd. Faisal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Perusing the medical report of the Respondent, the Court observed that he was neither colour blind nor was there any abnormality in his eye sight. However, there was one line in the report, mentioning that 'patient is not fit for technical job'. The Court further observed that the Respondent was selected for the post of Constable (Water Carrier) and not for the post of driver or of a technician. It further noted that there were no clear provisions in Rules as well as in GOP that job of Water Carrier is a technical job. There was also no clear opinion regarding colour blindness.

The Court further examined the relevant provisions under the Rules of 1973 and held that there was no specific provision regarding eye sight or colour blindness in the Rules of 1973-

The qualifications for the candidate for direct recruitment in the Special Armed Force has been given in Rule 22 of the Rules, 1973. As per Rule 22(v), the candidate should not be knock-kneed or footed. There is no specific provision regarding the eye sight or colour blindness in the Rules, 1973. As per Section 27 of the M.P.Vishesh Sashastra Bal Adhiniyam, 1968 the State Government may make rules not inconsistent with this Act for carrying out the purpose of this Act regarding recruitment, organisation, classification and discipline of members of the subordinate ranks and in exercise of its power, Rules, 1973 has been made by the State Government and the minimum qualification for the candidate for recruitment has been provided in Rule 22 of Rules, 1973.

Applying the abovementioned understanding in the case at hand, the Court noted-

As per the medical report of the MGM College dated 22.06.2017 patient is not fit for technical job, but there is nothing on record that post of Constable (Water Carrier) for which the respondent was selected was a technical job. There is no medical report that the respondent is unable to differentiate primary/basic colours.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court upheld the decision of the Writ Court to direct the State to issue the appointment order to Respondent/Petitioner with benefits. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.