On December 4, 2025, the Court passed the order in a significant service jurisprudence matter concerning medical standards for public employment. The case addressed whether a candidate could face lawful disqualification for having undergone refractive eye surgery prior to joining the police force. The legal dispute adjudicates administrative conflict between the Commissioner of Delhi Police and a group of aspiring candidates.
The recruitment process officially commenced with a public notice dated July 8, 2022, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Wireless Operator and Tele-Printer Operator at the Head Constable rank. The candidates successfully navigated the initial selection stages but encountered a major obstacle during the Detailed Medical Examination Board assessment. On December 28, 2023, the medical board declared them medically unfit due to their visual status. The candidates subsequently appealed this finding, but the Review Medical Examination Board upheld the disqualification on June 26, 2024, explicitly citing their prior refractive surgery, commonly known as Lasik, as the sole ground for rejection.
Seeking relief from the medical rejection, the candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. On May 6, 2025, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants in O.A. No. 3043/2024. The Tribunal highlighted that the original recruitment advertisement did not explicitly exclude candidates who had undergone refractive surgery to correct their vision. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized the specific nature of the Assistant Wireless Operator role. Because the position is primarily a desk job, the Tribunal reasoned that having corrected vision through Lasik surgery would not hinder the performance of official duties. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider appointing the meritorious candidates, granting them notional benefits for pay fixation and seniority while rightfully denying back wages based on the established legal principle of no work, no pay.
Dissatisfied with the Tribunal directive, the authorities filed a writ petition to challenge the decision. The core of their legal argument relied on a prior administrative policy change. The authorities asserted that the statutory recruitment rules were amended through a notification dated October 22, 2018, which introduced a strict condition requiring candidates to pass visual acuity tests without any surgical correction or glasses.
However, the legal counsel representing the candidates pointed out a critical flaw in this argument. While the 2018 amendment applied to various combat and field positions within the police force, it did not legally extend to the specific post of Assistant Wireless Operator or Tele-Printer Operator. Upon verification during the hearing, the legal representatives for the authorities conceded that this specific post was indeed excluded from the amended medical restrictions.
Having established that the existing statutory rules for this particular post did not bar candidates with prior Lasik surgery, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal decision. The Court passed the order dismissing the writ petition and instructed the authorities to fully comply with the Tribunal directives within a strict period of four weeks. The judgment concluded by clarifying that the ruling was based entirely on the current iteration of the recruitment rules. The Court explicitly stated that the authorities remain legally free to amend the statutory rules in the future if they deem it necessary to exclude candidates with refractive surgeries for this specific role.
Read the judgement here.