Synopsis

The respondent, a serving Constable in Delhi Police, applied for the post of Sub‑Inspector (Executive) pursuant to an advertisement and addendum issued in 2018. He had undergone LASIK surgery in 2012 (after his appointment as Constable) and continued to serve without any issue. The Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Board declared him unfit solely on the ground of “Refractive surgery in the right eye,” citing Clause 11(D) of the advertisement which required vision “without visual correction of any kind even by glasses.” The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his original application, directing his consideration for the post. The Delhi Police challenged this order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that at the time of selection (2018), the applicable Recruitment Rules (2013 version) and the advertisement did not explicitly prohibit LASIK surgery. The prohibition against “surgery of any kind” was introduced only by an amendment to Rule 7 on 22nd October 2018, which was after the selection process had concluded. The court held that the amended rule cannot be applied retrospectively to disqualify the respondent. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Date of Judgment: 9th April 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 10388/2025 (2026:DHC:2989-DB)

Core Law: Service Law – Recruitment rules – Medical standards – LASIK surgery – Retrospective application of amended rules

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 – Rule 7 (medical standards – eye sight), as amended in 2013 and further amended on 22nd October 2018

• Standing Order No. 321/2013 dated 14th March 2013 – medical standards for Delhi Police

• Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 – original jurisdiction

Key legal principles applied

• Recruitment rules applicable as on the date of advertisement/selection: Candidates are to be judged by the rules and standards that were in force at the time the selection process commenced. Subsequent amendments cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated.

• Rules of the game cannot be changed mid‑way: Once applications are invited, the employer cannot introduce new disqualifications or stricter standards after the selection process has begun, as this would violate the principle of fairness and legitimate expectation.

• Plain meaning of “without correction i.e. without wearing of glasses”: The 2013 version of Rule 7 mentioned only “without wearing of glasses.” It did not mention “surgery” or “LASIK.” The expression “i.e.” indicated an exhaustive definition, not an illustrative one. Theref

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.