The Gauhati High Court has validated the termination of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable whose service was ended after he was diagnosed with colour blindness nearly two years into his tenure.
In an order issued on August 12, Justice Kaushik Goswami rejected the petitioner’s challenge to his May 2017 discharge, ruling that prior service and completed training do not entitle an individual to remain in the force contrary to official policy. The court further held that it cannot compel the paramilitary force to create or assign alternative posts that violate established service guidelines.
Policy Framework and Written Undertaking
The petitioner joined the CRPF’s 11th Battalion in Guwahati as a general duty constable in November 2014 following a standard selection process. After completing a year of training in Maharashtra, he was stationed in Jharkhand. Medical assessments in 2016 revealed he was colour blind, leading to a show-cause notice in April 2017 and subsequent dismissal the following month.
During the proceedings, Central Government Counsel K. K. Parashar pointed out that under 2013 Ministry of Home Affairs policy guidelines, colour blindness serves as an absolute disqualification for both entry and retention across Central Armed Police Forces and the Assam Rifles. The guidelines stipulate that personnel mistakenly recruited with defective vision must be removed immediately upon detection.
The court emphasized that the constable had signed an explicit undertaking at the time of his enlistment agreeing to accept discharge if diagnosed with colour blindness at any stage of his career. Justice Goswami noted that the petitioner entered service after the 2013 guidelines took effect and that the validity of the policy itself was not challenged in the petition.
Arguments Over Alternative Roles
Advocate S. K. Medhi, representing the former constable, argued that because his client had already served nearly two years before the vision defect was identified, termination was unwarranted. The defense contended that the CRPF should have accommodated the petitioner in an alternative role where colour blindness would not impede daily duties.
Court Findings on Combat Readiness
Rejecting the defense’s argument, the court observed that the CRPF functions as an armed force where all positions carry combatant responsibilities. The government counsel clarified that no non-combatant posts exist within the organization, as even administrative and operational support staff undergo mandatory weapons training to ensure deployment capability during emergencies.
Justice Goswami ruled that the elapsed time between appointment and diagnosis did not exempt the individual from the governing regulations, affirming that operational requirements render colour blindness an absolute barrier across all roles in the force.
