Recruitment Standards Prohibiting LASIK/Refractive Surgery For Uniformed Posts Are Valid Policy Decisions Immune From Interference.

The applicant, a 24-year-old candidate for the post of Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police, challenged her disqualification from the recruitment process following a medical report dated 24.01.2024

She was declared medically unfit because she had undergone LASIK/refractive eye surgery

The applicant challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, the medical unfitness report, and the underlying Standing Order HRD/04/2022 and notification dated 22.10.2018, which disqualify candidates solely on the grounds of having undergone such surgeries

She contended that the standards were irrational, especially as other government bodies permit LASIK under specific conditions

The respondents maintained that the disqualification was based on prescribed policy decisions taken in the interest of service requirements

1. Whether the disqualification of a candidate for the post of Constable (Executive) solely on the grounds of having undergone LASIK/refractive surgery is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution

2. Whether the medical standards prescribed under Standing Order HRD/04/2022 and the amendment dated 22.10.2018 fall within the valid policy domain of the competent authority

The Tribunal applied the principle of stare decisis and judicial consistency, relying heavily on its own recent precedent in Devang Singh vs. Union of India Ors. (O.A. No. 4301/2024)

It affirmed that medical fitness standards for recruitment are matters of policy within the exclusive domain of the employer or competent authority

The Tribunal further applied the doctrine that unless a policy is proven to be patently arbitrary or illegal, the judiciary should not interfere with recruitment criteria designed for specific service requirements

The Tribunal noted that the legal questions raised were "no longer res integra" because the same recruitment process and the same set of rules (Standing Order HRD/04/2022 and the 2018 amendment) had already been adjudicated in a lead matter, Devang Singh vs. Union of India Ors.

The respondents had adopted the same pleadings as in the lead case, asserting identical facts and law

The Tribunal reasoned that the medical standards disqualifying LASIK patients were not arbitrary but were policy decisions made to ensure candidates meet the rigorous physical demands of the police force

Consequently, following the principle of judicial discipline, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its prior finding that the challenge to these medical standards could not be sustained

The Tribunal answer the issues by upholding the validity of Standing Order HRD/04/2022 and the notification dated 22.10.2018, noting that they do not warrant interference as they fall within the domain of the competent authority

The O.A. was dismissed in terms of the decision rendered in Devang Singh vs. Union of India Ors. All pending M.A.s were disposed of with no order as to costs