Rekha Palli JUDGMENT
Rekha Palli, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the 16 petitioners assailing their termination from the CISF vide orders dated 04.09.2017 and 08.09.2017. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 08.01.2018, vide which the appeal against their termination has been rejected by the respondent no. 2/Inspector General (IG), CISF.
2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that pursuant to an advertisement issued in January, 2015 by the respondents, the petitioners had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the CISF. Upon qualifying the Physical Standard Test, the petitioners had appeared in the Written Examination in which they were declared successful. After undergoing the Medical Examination in May, 2016, wherein they were found 'fit', the petitioners were selected and offered the post of Constable (GD) in the CISF as per the merit list published in February, 2017.
3. Based on their selection, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 15.03.2017 and directed to report at their respective Recruitment Training Centres for basic training. The offer of appointment issued to the petitioners clearly specified that they would be on probation for a period of two years. It transpires that after the petitioners reported at the training centres, a Colour Blindness Test of all the recruitees, including the petitioners herein, was conducted at the CISF Hospital of the respective Recruitment Training Centres, wherein they were found to be suffering from defective colour vision. However, before taking any action to terminate their services, the petitioners were re-examined by a Review Medical Board held between 26.07.2017 to 31.07.2017 at the Composite Hospital, CRPF Jharoda Kalan, where they were once again declared 'unfit' due to defective colour vision.
4. Based on the aforesaid findings, the services of the petitioners were terminated vide the impugned letters dated 04.09.2017 and 08.09.2017, under Rule 25(ii) of the CISF Rules.
5. Aggrieved by their termination, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2/Inspector General (IG), CISF. Thereafter, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of filing W.P.(C) No. 10247/2017, complaining of the in-action on the part of the respondent no. 2/Inspector General (IG), CISF in deciding their appeal. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioners' pending appeal by passing a detailed and speaking order within a period of eight weeks. The respondents had accordingly, vide the impugned order dated 08.01.2018, rejected the petitioners' appeal, leading to the filing of the present petition.
6. Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners after having appointed them on being found medically fit in the initial Medical Examination, is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that all the petitioners had lost out on precious years of their life in successfully completing the selection process, which had been initiated more than two years ago and, therefore, their termination at a belated stage when they had already undergone training for three to five months, was not only unfair, but was also stigmatic as the decision had been taken without keeping in mind the fact that most of the petitioners had now become over-age for any other recruitment.
7. Mr. Singh further submits that the termination of the petitioners is contrary to the authoritative pronouncement of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Kumar v. UOI & Anr. & other connected matters [W.P.(C) No. 5077/2008 & connected matters] as also in the case of Sh. P.........