Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Delhi Police And Ors vs Vivek Yadav on 9 April, 2026
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10388/2025, CM APPLs. 43154/2025 & 2541/2026
COMMISSIONER OF DELHI
POLICE AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC
with Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Gautam Yadav
and Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advs.
versus
VIVEK YADAV .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr.
Nilansh Gaur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 09.04.2026
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
CM APPL. 2541/2026 (for waiver of cost)
1. This application has been filed by the petitioners seeking waiver
of costs of ₹10,000/- imposed by this Court vide order dated 26
November 2025.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the cost is waived and
the application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10388/2025, CM APPL. 43154/2025
3. This writ petition assails the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 1 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
Delhi1 in O.A. No. 197/2021, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed
the O.A. filed by the Respondent herein. By the impugned order, the
learned Tribunal set aside the decision of the Review Medical Board
(RMB) declaring the Respondent as medically unfit and permitted him
to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector
(Executive)2 in Delhi Police with the following direction:
“6.2 The respondents shall consider the case of the applicant for
the post of Sub-Inspector in terms of Rule 29 of Delhi Police
(Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Needless to say that, if the applicant is otherwise eligible, he shall
be offered the post of Sub-Inspector with all consequential benefits
including salary on notional basis from the date when his
immediate junior joined services in respective category. The actual
emoluments shall be paid from the date of joining.”
4. The Respondent joined and continues to be in service of the
Delhi Police as a Constable (Executive) with effect from 05.10.2012.
{{{
5. Subsequently, on 03.03.2018, Petitioner No. 3 issued an
advertisement inviting applications for SI in Delhi Police, CAPFs3 and
Assistant SIs in CISF4 Examination, 2018. Clause 11(D) of this
advertisement stipulated that the minimum distant vision of 6/6 and
6/9 was required “without visual correction of any kind even by
glasses”.
6. Thereafter, an addendum to this advertisement was issued on
02.04.2018 by Petitioner No. 1 for filling up of 123 vacancies from
within the department for the post of SI (Male) in Delhi Police.
1
“Tribunal” Hereinafter
2
“SI” hereinafter
3
Central Armed Police Forces
4
Central Industrial Security Force
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
7. Pursuant to the addendum, whilst serving as Constable, the
Respondent applied for the post of SI. After having qualified the
previous stages in the selection process, the Respondent appeared for
the medical examination.
8. In the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) report dated
19.03.2020, the Respondent was declared unfit. This opinion was
upheld in the Review Medical Examination (RME) on 26.11.2020 on
account of “Refractive surgery in the right eye”.
9. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed an O.A. before the Tribunal.
10. The question before the learned Tribunal was whether the
Respondent having admittedly undergone LASIK surgery, was
entitled to be considered for the post of SI in light of the applicable
rules.
11. The learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A., opining that the
Respondent was appointed as Constable after clearing the medical
examination and that LASIK surgery in his eye was never considered
as an impediment in his performance.
12. The learned Tribunal observed that the posts of Constable and
SI involved identical functions and there was nothing on record to
demonstrate that the medical standards for Constable and SI in Delhi
Police were distinct.
13. It was also held that when the selection process concluded on
02.04.2018, LASIK surgery was not proscribed by the applicable
rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 3 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
14. Aggrieved, the Petitioners approached this Court primarily
citing Clause 11(D) of the Advertisement which, according to them,
prohibits any visual correction of any kind even by glasses, therefore
prohibits LASIK surgery as well. It is also submitted that the
Respondent underwent Lasik surgery two days after having being
recruited as Constable in Delhi Police, i.e., after his vision was
assessed as 6/6.
15. Mr. Dixit, learned CGSC, also cites amendment to the Delhi
Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules5 w.e.f. 22.10.2018,
whereby Rule 7 was amended to categorically prohibit any visual
correction by glasses or surgery to improve visual acuity.
16. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the
Recruitment Rules were amended after the selection process had
concluded and hence, will not apply. Reliance is placed on Rule 7 of
the Recruitment Rules (as amended in 2013) and Standing Order No.
321/2013 dated 14.03.2013, both of which stipulate the requirement
for eyesight as “without correction, i.e., without wearing of glasses”,
to submit that LASIK surgery was not explicitly prohibited.
17. Heard the learned Counsels for both parties.
18. It is trite that a person seeking employment to a public post
must be evaluated as per the prescribed standards and applicable rules
governing recruitment to the said post.
19. It is also well settled that concurrent opinions of the DME and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 4 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
RME with respect to medical fitness of a candidate ordinarily bind
adjudication of these issues since courts are not to re-assess expert
medical opinions. This position is affirmed by this Bench in Staff
Selection Commission v. Aman Singh6 and Naomi Neijoujam
Haokip v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.7, wherein it is clarified
that judicial interference in such matters are limited and warranted
only in exceptional circumstances.
20. In the present case, rejection by the RME was on the ground
that the Respondent underwent LASIK surgery in the right eye.
21. It is undisputed that the Respondent, after having undergone the
LASIK surgery, remained in service as a Constable (Executive) in the
Delhi Police.
22. The Respondent applied for selection to the post of SI in
pursuance of the addendum dated 02.04.2018, which was an extension
of the advertisement dated 03.03.2018 inviting applications for SI.
Paragraph 7 of this addendum provides that other contents of the
notice shall remain unchanged. Hence, the medical standards
stipulated in the advertisement shall apply.
23. Therefore, we deem apposite to reproduce Clause 11(D) of the
advertisement dated 03.03.2018, as follows:
“11(D) Medical standard (For all posts)
Eye sight: The minimum near vision should be N6 (better eye) and
N9 (worse eye). The minimum distant vision should be 6/6 (better
eye) and 6/9 (worse eye). In right handed person, the right eye is5
“Recruitment Rules” hereinafter
6 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600
7 W.P.(C) 15804/2025 decided on 14.10.2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 5 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
the better eye and vice versa. The standards should be without
visual correction of any kind even by glasses.
The candidate must not have knock knee, flat foot, varicose vein or
squint in eyes. They must be in good mental and bodily health and
free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient
performance of the duties.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. From a plain reading of the above, it is clear that at the time of
selection, visual correction with LASIK surgery was not explicitly
stated as a ground for disqualification. Significantly, this prohibition
was later introduced after the selection process has ended by an
amendment in the Rules in 2018. This subsequent amendment, in
itself, unequivocally establishes that such restriction did not exist at
the time of selection.
25. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be disqualified by merely
having undergone LASIK surgery. This is buttressed by the fact that
he remained in service in the Delhi Police as a Constable (Executive)
even after such surgery without any complaints or objections.
26. We further deem necessary to reproduce Rule 7 of the Delhi
Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 as amended in
2013, herein below:
“7. (i) the minimum distant vision should be 6/6 and 6/9 of both
eyes without correction i.e. without wearing of glasses.”
27. From the aforesaid rule, it is clear that there is no mention of
word ‘surgery’ of any kind. Further, it mentions “i.e., without wearing
of glasses”, which ordinarily indicates an exhaustive definition.
However, we find that the aforementioned Rule came to be further
amended on 22.10.2018, wherein for the first time, the word ‘surgery’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 6 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
was introduced and the Rule came to be amended, as follows:
“7. (i) Eye Sight: The minim near vision should be N6 (better eye)
and N9 (worse eye). The minimum distant vision should be 6/6
(better eye) and 6/9 (worse eye) of both eyes without nay
correction like wearing glasses or surgery of any kind to improve
visual acuity. In right handed person, the right eye is the better eye
and vice-versa.”
28. It is evident from the aforesaid that Rule 7 as amended in 2018,
explicitly prohibits visual correction by surgery.
29. However, it is also well settled that this amended Rule cannot
be said to have retrospective application unless explicitly stated.
30. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot now be permitted to
retrospectively apply the Rules introduced on 22.10.2018 to the
selection process which concluded on 02.04.2018. The contrary would
amount to changing the rules of the game after having invited
applications, which is in violation of the decision in Tej Prakash
Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.8. Hence, the Respondent
shall be governed by the earlier Recruitment Rules alone, whereby
such proscription did not exist.
31. The Respondent underwent the surgery in 2012 and thereafter
served as Constable in Delhi Police. In these circumstances, such
surgery cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for disqualification,
particularly when this proscription was introduced subsequently.
Acceding to Mr. Dixit’s submission would amount to retrospective
application to the proscription against the candidates who had
undergone LASIK Surgery prior thereto, which cannot be done by this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 7 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
Court.
32. We also cannot find ourselves to agree with the learned CGSC
on behalf of the Petitioners that the advertisement clearly prohibited
LASIK surgery.
33. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
34. The writ petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
35. The petitioners shall comply with the impugned order passed by
the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
APRIL 9, 2026/pa
8 (2025) 2 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 10388/2025 Page 8 of 8
Signing Date:14.04.2026
16:06:32
