Delhi Police may validly disqualify Constable candidates who underwent refractive surgery to improve visual acuity.

The applicant applied for appointment as Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police pursuant to the relevant recruitment advertisement. She qualified the Computer-Based Examination on merit and successfully cleared the Physical Endurance & Measurement Test. However, during medical examination, she was declared unfit on the ground of “Prior Refractive Surgery (BE),” despite allegedly satisfying the prescribed visual-acuity standards.

Pursuant to directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 769/2024, she underwent a fresh medical examination at CRPF, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, on 25 June 2024, but was again declared medically unfit on the same ground.

The applicant challenged the order dated 11 September 2024, the notification dated 22 October 2018, Clause 13.1 of the recruitment advertisement, Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022, and the medical-unfitness report.

The respondents relied upon the Tribunal’s judgment dated 30 April 2026 in O.A. No. 4042/2024 and connected matters, which had upheld the relevant medical standards and dismissed similar challenges.

1. Whether the applicant’s disqualification from appointment solely on the ground of prior refractive/LASIK surgery, despite her alleged compliance with the prescribed visual-acuity requirement, was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the amendment/notification dated 22 October 2018, Clause 13.1 of the recruitment advertisement, and Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022, insofar as they prohibit surgery undertaken to improve visual acuity, were arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration of her candidature and appointment as Constable (Executive) with consequential benefits.

The Tribunal relied on Sections 4 and 5 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, under which the Administrator exercises superintendence over the Delhi Police and may prescribe its organisation, recruitment and conditions of service.

Section 134 of the Act protects rules, orders and notifications made in substantial conformity with the statute from invalidation on technical or procedural grounds.

The applicable medical standard required visual acuity of 6/12 in both eyes without glasses and freedom from colour blindness; the 22 October 2018 notification additionally required that candidates have no correction through glasses or surgery to improve visual acuity, with no relaxation on that count.

The Tribunal applied Union of India v. Satya Prakash Vasisht, 1994 SCC (Supp.) 2 52, holding that prescribed recruitment medical standards are binding and cannot be diluted contrary to the advertisement.

The Tribunal applied Dalbir Singh v. Union of India, Civil Appeals Nos. 1270–1271 of 2022, decided on 10 May 2022, which concerned LASIK standards in the Railway Protection Force but granted relief on its specific facts.

The Tribunal applied State of Madras v. V.G. Row, 1952 SCR 597, on the reasonableness of restrictions; Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1962 (2) SCR 125, on reasonable classification and permissible administrative discretion; and State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, 2025 INSC 334, recognising the recruiting authority’s discretion to determine the stages and standards of recruitment, subject to statutory compliance, fairness and non-arbitrariness.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process with knowledge of its conditions cannot ordinarily challenge those conditions after being unsuccessful.

The Tribunal held that the present case was substantially identical to the matters decided in O.A. No. 4042/2024 and connected cases and that no distinguishing feature justified a different conclusion.

It accepted that the Delhi Police could prescribe medical standards suited to the operational requirements of its executive cadre, whose duties extend to maintaining public order, preventing and detecting crime, and functioning in varying conditions, including at night.

The Tribunal distinguished the Railway Protection Force standards considered in Dalbir Singh, observing that the RPF and Delhi Police operate under different statutory frameworks and perform materially different functions.

It further relied on the opinion of an AIIMS ophthalmologist that post-LASIK candidates may require annual examinations and may face difficulties involving glare and dim-light vision, making tests such as contrast sensitivity, mesopic vision and glare acuity relevant to police duties.

On that basis, the prohibition on prior refractive surgery was found to have an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the objective of maintaining a medically robust and operationally effective police force.

The applicant’s participation with knowledge of the applicable medical condition and her failure to satisfy the express recruitment standard further weakened the challenge.

Judicial review could not be used to substitute the Tribunal’s assessment for the policy and expert medical assessment of the competent authority.

It upheld the applicable medical standard disqualifying candidates who had undergone surgery to improve visual acuity and found no arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity in the 22 October 2018 notification, Clause 13.1 of the advertisement, or Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022.

Following the decision in O.A. No. 4042/2024 and connected matters, the Original Application was dismissed.

The challenge to the medical-unfitness report and the claims for restoration of candidature, appointment and consequential benefits were consequently rejected.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.