CAT rejects LASIK-operated Delhi Police aspirant’s plea, applying ruling upholding the force’s unaided-vision standard

The applicant challenged his Review Medical Examination certificate declaring him unfit for recruitment as a Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police, following refractive/LASIK surgery.

He sought that the certificate be set aside, his candidature reconsidered, and that he be examined by an independent medical board; alternatively, he sought appointment based on a government hospital’s medical certificate.

The respondents submitted that the issue had already been decided by a Coordinate Bench in O.A. No. 4042/2024 and connected matters on 30 April 2026.

Whether the applicant’s challenge to his medical unfitness on account of LASIK/refractive surgery should succeed, including whether he was entitled to a fresh medical examination or appointment.

Whether the Tribunal should follow the Coordinate Bench’s decision rejecting the challenge to the Delhi Police medical standard concerning LASIK surgery.

The Delhi Police Act, 1978, including Sections 4 and 5, provides for the administration and constitution of the Delhi Police and for prescribed conditions of service; Section 134 addresses the validity of actions taken in substantial conformity with the Act.

The applicable Delhi Police medical standard, as amended by the notification dated 22 October 2018, requires the prescribed visual acuity without correction by glasses or surgery and allows no relaxation on that ground.

The Coordinate Bench applied the principles that recruitment standards are binding and that a recruiting authority may prescribe medical requirements connected to a force’s operational needs, subject to constitutional requirements of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

It distinguished Dalbir Singh v. Union of India, where relief concerning LASIK surgery was limited to five appellants in the Railway Protection Force.

It also relied on State of Madras v. V.G. Row, Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, and State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha on reasonableness, delegated discretion, and the recruiting authority’s role in setting selection standards.

The Tribunal considered the present application substantially identical to the matters decided by the Coordinate Bench, which had examined the Delhi Police medical standard, the 2018 amendment, and the authorities relied upon by the parties.

Finding no reason to take a different view, it adopted that decision rather than independently reconsidering the validity of the LASIK-related standard or the applicant’s individual medical fitness.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.