VIJAYKUMAR ARAJANJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-228
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 21,2020

Vijaykumar Arajanji Thakor Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KHANT HARISCHANDRA AMARSINH VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
RANI LAXMIBAI KSHETRIYA AND GRAMIN VS. CHAND BEHARI KAPOOR AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
BIR BAJRANG KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SATYA PRAKASH VASISHT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties through video conferencing. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Ishan Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, as the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court, the present petition is being taken up for final hearing today.
(2.)In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the short question is whether the petitioner could have been sidelined for being appointed to the post of armed/unarmed police constable/Lokrakshak as per his merit with all consequential benefits. As the issue involved in the present petition has already been discussed in earlier petitions, without delving into the facts in detail, the main grievance of the petitioner is required to be looked into as to whether he could be sidelined for such appointment on the ground of his medical incapacity of colour blindness.
(3.)Mr. Devendra Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner invited my attention to a common oral order dated 26.07.2018 passed in a group of petitions being Special Civil Application No. 15431 of 2017 and allied matters where similar cases were considered. He submitted that the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal before the Division Bench of this Court vide Letters Patent Appeal No. 1136 of 2018 and the appeal was allowed vide judgement and order dated 02.11.2018.
3.1 Mr. Pandya has further drawn the attention of this court to the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3739 of 2018 on 08.04.2019 whereby this court after discussing various decisions of the Apex Court allowed the petitions and gave certain directions. He has also relied on a decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3231 of 2020 with Special Civil Application No. 3236 of 2020 on 10.02.2020.

3.2 Mr. Pandya has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1345, wherein in paragraph 2 it is stated as under :

"2. Heard counsel for the parties. After going through the record of the case it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point has already been admitted by the High Court but another identical petition was dismissed by the same High Court. This, therefore, creates a very anomalous position and there is a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered in the same case by the High Court. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 163 of 1985. This appeal is remanded to the High Court to be heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 5728 of 1984 which is pending hearing."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.