Recruitment rule amendments cannot retrospectively disqualify candidates for LASIK surgery after the selection process commences.

The Respondent, serving as a Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police since 2012

applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (SI) pursuant to an advertisement dated 03.03.2018 and an addendum dated 02.04.2018

Although the Respondent qualified for the initial selection stages, he was declared medically unfit by the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and the Review Medical Board (RMB) on account of "Refractive surgery in the right eye" (LASIK)

The Respondent challenged this disqualification before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which allowed his application, setting aside the RMB decision and directing the Petitioners to consider his appointment with consequential benefits

The Petitioners approached the High Court, contending that Clause 11(D) of the advertisement and a subsequent amendment to the Recruitment Rules prohibited visual correction of any kind, including surgery

1. Whether the Respondent could be disqualified for having undergone LASIK surgery based on the medical standards stipulated in the advertisement dated 03.03.2018 and the Recruitment Rules applicable at the time

2. Whether the amendment to Rule 7 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, effective from 22.10.2018, which explicitly prohibits visual correction by surgery, can be applied retrospectively to a selection process that concluded on 02.04.2018

The Court applied the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, specifically Rule 7 as amended in 2013, which required distant vision "without correction, i.e., without wearing of glasses"

It also considered the 2018 amendment to Rule 7, which explicitly prohibited "surgery of any kind to improve visual acuity"

The Court relied on the principle that candidates must be evaluated based on standards and rules applicable at the time of recruitment

furthermore, it applied the doctrine from Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, which prohibits changing the "rules of the game" after the selection process has commenced or concluded

The Court also noted the limited scope of judicial interference in expert medical opinions as established in Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh

The Court observed that at the time the selection process concluded (02.04.2018), the applicable rules and the advertisement only prohibited visual correction "even by glasses" and did not explicitly proscribe LASIK surgery

The 2013 amendment to Rule 7 used an exhaustive definition of correction by specifying "i.e., without wearing of glasses"

The Court found that the explicit prohibition against surgery was only introduced on 22.10.2018, which was subsequent to the conclusion of the Respondent's selection process

Therefore, the Petitioners could not retrospectively apply the 2018 amendment to disqualify the Respondent

The Court further noted that the Respondent had successfully performed his duties as a Constable for years post-surgery, reinforcing the conclusion that the surgery was not an impediment under the rules existing at the time of his SI application

It held that the Respondent could not be disqualified based on a rule amendment that lacked retrospective effect and was introduced after the selection process had ended

The Court directed the Petitioners to comply with the Tribunal’s directions—which included offering the post of SI with notional seniority and consequential benefits—within four weeks