IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.53105/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
CHETHAN KUMAR M.N S/O NARAYANA SWAMY M.L AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS # 98, KUMBARA STREET MALAMACHANA HALLI SHIDLA GHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-562 102 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI L.SIDDAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT) CARLTON BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND MEMBER SECRETARY RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING PSI (CIVIL) CARLTON BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.29.8.2017 (ANNEX-A) PASSED BY HON'BLE KSAT IN A.NO.3653/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER DTD.13.11.2017 VIDE ANNEX-B PASSED BY THE SAID TRIBUNAL IN THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.137/2017 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.12.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R 1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (‘KAT’ for short), dated 29.08.2017, in Application No.3653/2017 as also rejection of Review Application filed thereon, vide order dated 13.11.2017 in R.A.No.137/2017.
2. Petitioner applied for the post of a Sub-Inspector of Police and he was provisionally selected. He was examined by a Medical Board which gave a finding that the petitioner was having squint eyes. By order as per Anneuxre-A3 dated 28.06.2017, the Additional Director General of Police and the Chairman of the Selection Committee ordered cancellation of petitioner’s provisional selection. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order before the KAT inter alia praying for quashing the order cancelling his provisional selection.
3. The KAT, rejected petitioner’s application by order dated 29.08.2017. A Review Application filed thereon also stood dismissed by order dated 13.11.2017. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Shri L.Siddaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, arguing in support of this writ petition principally urged two contentions. Firstly, that the Medical Board has specifically recorded that the recruiting authority may decide with regard to petitioner’s fitness for the job. Secondly, that the petitioner has got his squint eyes corrected by surgery.
5. Learned Counsel further argued that in a case involving recruitment in South Central Railway, it has been held that a candidate can be disqualified only if the medical condition interferes with the efficient performance of duties. He submitted that such judicial finding has been given in the case of A.Sankara Reddy v. C.M.O., South Central Railway (1989(4) SLJ (CAT) 991). However, the learned Counsel did not make available the copy of the said authority.
6. With the above submissions, he prayed for allowing this writ petition.
7. Per contra, Smt.M.S.Prathima, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the recruiting authority cancelling petitioner’s provisional selection. She submitted that a person suffering from ‘Strabismus’, which, in common parlance is known as squint eye, is a condition which affects depth perception resulting in imperfect binocular vision. Further, she placed reliance on the ‘Karnataka State Police including Ministerial Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2009’ (‘Recruitment Rules’ for short) gazetted on 28th May, 2009. She contended that in terms of the said Recruitment Rules, squint eye/s shall be a disqualification for appointment.
8. We have carefully considered submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material papers.
9. The Medical Board, after examining the petitioner has recorded as follows:
“candidate is having squint eye. It is left to the recruiting authority to decide about the fitness for the job.”
10. Admittedly, the petitioner has applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Recruitment Rules disqualify a person with squint eyes for recruitment as a Police Personnel. The said rules are not under challenge.
11. In the circumstances, the order as per Annexure-A3 passed by the Recruiting Authority is in consonance with the extant rules. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders of rejection of petitioner’s application as also the Review Application by the KAT.
12. Resultantly this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.