BUDH PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Budh Pal Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 37621 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6615 (27 March 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ No. 37621 of 2002

Hari Kishan Dangwal                                                     Petitioner

                                             Vs.

Union of India and others                                           Respondents.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

           Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

             The petitioner moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground with supportive document that his father died  in harness on 16.11.99. He was appointed in C.R.P.F. subject to passing medical examination.

            It appears from Annexure-CA-6 letter dated 11th January, 2002   issued by the Directorate, Central CRPF, CCO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi under Ministry of Home Affairs that colour blindness shall be a disqualification for the appointment in Combatised Ministerial Ranks.

From the record it appears that on medical examination the petitioner was found unfit as he was suffering from colour blindness, hence he cannot be appointed in CRPF.

The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the only a person in the family who can be given appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.  Since the petitioner was found medically disqualified for appointment under the CRPF and appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is not a legal right. In the circumstances, neither the petitioner having been found medically fit at the very initial stage of induction nor any one from his family can be given appointment.

          For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 27.3.2006

CPP/-

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.