BENCH AT JAIPUR vs Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of

Judgment

1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur I, New Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise And Customs, New Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Swapnil Singh Patel For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/03/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):

1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’) dismissing Original Application (OA) No.465/2015 filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts are that the respondents issued a notification for the combined examination under special recruitment for Sports Player for the post of Inspector, UDC and LDC in the Central Excise Department. The petitioner was selected for the post of Inspector and UDC. On giving up claim for post of UDC petitioner was offered appointment to the post of inspector on 19.01.1996, [2025:RJ-JP:14308-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-1839/2025] subject to producing medical fitness certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon. The petitioner was examined in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and was found to be colour blind. The petitioner continued in service by producing a medical certificate issued by the Divisional Medical Board, Jabalpur (for short ‘DMB’) for which it was found that no record was available. The department on gaining knowledge that the petitioner was colour blind terminated the service on 16.02.2000. The investigation was handed over to CBI with regard to furnishing of false medical certificate and the petitioner was convicted. The OA No.384/2000 filed challenging the termination order dated 16.02.2000 was dismissed by tribunal on 19.01.2004. The termination on the ground that the petitioner was convicted in criminal case was upheld. The prayer for appointment on the post of UDC was also rejected. The petitioner after acquittal in appeal, approached the respondents for appointment on the post of Inspector and the request was rejected stating that the petitioner was medically unfit for the post of Inspector. The rejection order dated 06.09.2006 was challenged by filing OA No.422/2006. The tribunal dismissed OA on

28.03.2011 and held that the petitioner was medically unfit for the post of Inspector being colour blind. In the year 2015, the OA in question was filed with the prayer that the petitioner is medically unfit for the post of Inspector but should be given appointment on the post of UDC. The prayer was rejected and hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is fighting for last twenty five years and has not got appointment inspite of having been selected for the post of Inspector as well as [2025:RJ-JP:14308-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-1839/2025] UDC. The contention is that the petitioner inspite of having been acquitted in the criminal case is jobless. Reliance is placed upon decision of High Court of Madras in the case of A. Marimuthu vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division – IV) Ltd. & Anr. (WP No.15413/2003) dated

02.11.2009 to submit that a colour blind employee should be adjusted on an alternative suitable post.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the prayer of the petitioner for appointment to the post of UDC was rejected by the tribunal on 19.01.2004 in OA No.384/2000 and the order has attained finality.

5. The appointment of the petitioner to the post of Inspector was subject to producing of medical fitness certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon. Inspite of having found to be colour blind in medical examination done by SMS Hospital, Jaipur the petitioner was able to join the service on the basis of medical certificate of DMB for which there was no record. The petitioner was terminated from service and the matter was handed over for investigation to CBI.

6. In the first round of litigation before the tribunal, the petitioner made two-fold prayers; (i) quashing of the termination order and (ii) prayer for appointment on the post of UDC. The first prayer was rejected as the petitioner at that time was convicted in the criminal case. While dealing with the second prayer, the tribunal recorded a finding that after the petitioner gave up the claim for the post of UDC, one Shri Krishan Kumar Tanwar was appointed on 28.05.1996 and there was no question of the prayer being allowed after eight years. In other words the [2025:RJ-JP:14308-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-1839/2025] prayer was considered and rejected on merits. It is an undisputed fact that order has attained finality.

7. Appointment sought by petitioner on the post of Inspector after acquittal in appeal was denied holding that petitioner is medically unfit for the post. The tribunal on 28.03.2011 dismissed OA No.422/2006 confirming the decision that the petitioner was medically unfit to be appointed on the post of Inspector. It would be apposite to mention that at that stage, no alternative prayer was made for appointment on the post of UDC.

8. The petitioner filed OA in dispute in the year 2015 seeking appointment on the post of UDC. The tribunal rightly dismissed the OA holding that the recruitment was of 1996 and after twenty- eight years, the relief sought cannot be considered. It was noted that the prayer made in OA No.384/2000 for appointing the petitioner on post of UDC was not rejected because of conviction in the criminal case but was rejected on merit and has attained finality. It would be relevant to mention that petitioner neither set up a case that the vacancy of post of UDC is in pursuance to the relevant advertisement is vacant nor impleaded person appointed on the post of UDC as respondent.

9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of A. Marimuthu (supra) is of no avail. The Court was dealing with the matter, wherein an employee working with the department was terminated being unfit to continue having become colour blind. In that back drop it was held that termination was not justified and the employee should be posted at a suitable alternative post. In the case in hand, at the threshold the petitioner was found medically unfit for appointment to the post of [2025:RJ-JP:14308-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-1839/2025] Inspector. The petitioner was found to be colour blind by the SMS Hospital, Jaipur but got appointment on the basis of medical certificate issued by the DMB whereas the offer of appointment was subject to producing medical certificate issued by Civil Surgeon. The petitioner was terminated from service and the termination has attained finality.

10. There is no legal factual error much less perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Deepa/11 Reportable : Yes