Constable With Colour Blindness Could Cause Danger To Public: J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Constables From BSF

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul upheld their dismissal, observing that such a condition could potentially endanger public safety due to the nature of their duties.

“A Constable (General Duty) in the BSF is deployed for different kinds of duties like drivers and traffic duties. They are also deputed to perform the duty of Pilot and Escort. Thus, a Constable with colour blindness could cause danger to the life of public by giving or noticing wrong coloured signal”, the court remarked.

The petitioners, Anand and another individual, were selected as Constables (General Duty) in BSF in 2011 following a rigorous recruitment process, including medical examinations. Upon joining the BSF training centre at Udhampur, they underwent another medical evaluation, during which they were found to have defective colour vision. Confirmed by multiple medical boards, their condition rendered them unfit to continue the training or serve in roles requiring accurate colour perception. Consequently, their services were terminated under Rule 13 of the BSF Rules, 1969.

Challenging this, the petitioners contended that their dismissal violated procedural fairness as they were declared fit during initial recruitment and were not informed of their condition beforehand. They alleged that the termination lacked a proper opportunity for representation and was arbitrary and unlawful.

Represented by DSGI Mr. Vishal Sharma, the BSF argued that colour vision is a critical requirement for constables who perform duties such as signaling and piloting, where incorrect recognition of colours can pose grave risks.The dismissals adhered to BSF Rules and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), they added.

Upholding the necessity of stringent medical standards for BSF personnel Justice Koul noted that a Constable (General Duty) often performs duties like traffic regulation, piloting, and escorting, where accurate colour vision is essential. A colour-blind constable could misinterpret signals, potentially leading to accidents or compromising public safety, he underscored.

Since Medical Board's findings, based on tests conducted at both BSF and government hospitals, confirmed defective colour vision in the petitioners the Court refrained from questioning the Medical Board's conclusions, emphasizing its authoritative role in such matters.

Justice Koul also distinguished this case from precedents cited by the petitioners, including Union of India v. Satya Prakash Vashishst (1994) and Mohamed Ibrahim v. CMD (2023). Unlike those cases, which involved roles less dependent on physical abilities or where accommodations were feasible, the duties of a BSF constable necessitate unimpaired colour vision.

“Once incumbent does not conform to the test prescribed qua medical fitness, he cannot be enlisted as constable in BSF and he cannot be inducted as member of the (BSF) Force”, the court concluded and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Anand Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 330

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment