Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2795
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Dalbir & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3214, 5105, 8092 of 2015 & 3207 of 2016
Decided On : 04-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Harsh Vardhan Sharma, Mr. Prashant Chandra
For the Respondents: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. Preet Singh, Mr. Kiran Kaushik
The court affirmed the validity of medical standards and policy decisions regarding employment eligibility and the impact of Lasik surgery on vision correction.
Headnote:
LASIK SURGERY - EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY - Indian Railways Medical Manual, 2000 para 512(9), Gazette Notification - [Radial Keratotomy, Lasik Surgery] - The court discussed the medical standards prescribed for eye sight by the Indian Railways, the amendment made in the Railway Manual concerning Lasik surgery, and the gazette notification permitting eye vision correction. The court highlighted the impact of Lasik surgery on employment eligibility and the reasons for upholding the medical standards.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners underwent Lasik surgery to correct their vision and were denied employment in the Railway Protection Force and Border Security Force due to not meeting the prescribed medical standards. One petitioner disputed undergoing Lasik surgery.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed all writ petitions, upholding the medical standards and the policy decision to exclude candidates who have undergone Lasik surgery from certain employment categories.
Issues: Employment eligibility based on medical standards for vision, impact of Lasik surgery on eligibility, and interpretation of relevant medical manuals and notifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the medical standards and policy decision, considering the potential complications and impact of Lasik surgery on night duties for constables in the Indian Railways and Border Security Force.
Final Decision: All writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The writ petitioners of the above captioned petitions except Dharmender Kumar the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.8092/2015 have admittedly undergone surgical correction of eye sight by a process commonly known as Lasik surgery. Post surgery the distal and near vision is as per the prescribed standards without using any external aid i.e. specs. All of them have been denied employment on the ground that the medical standards prescribed require the distal and near vision to be as per the prescribed standard sans any correction surgery. The writ petitioners of all writ petitions were detected with either distal or near vision problem when they were medically examined and each undertook a Lasik surgery to correct the medical infirmity detected in them. Dharmender Kumar the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.8092/2015 disputes that he has undergone Lasik surgery and the dispute in said writ petition is whether his corrective eye vision is on account of Lasik surgery.
2. The writ petitioners of WP(C) 5105/2015 and WP(C) 3214/2015 claim employment as constables in the Railway Protection Force. The writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3207/2016 claims employment under BSF as a constable and the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.8092/2015 claims employment as a constable under CISF.
3. Photo Refractive Keratectomy (PRK) was invented in the early 1980s and the first FDA approval of a Laser for PRK was given in the year 1995. It is performed with an Eximer Laser, which uses a cool ultraviolet light beam to precisely remove (ablate) very tinny bids of tissue from the surface of the cornea in order to re-shape it. Both Myopic and Hyper-metropic refractive errors can be corrected by PRK. The procedure of PRK does not cut a thin flap into the eye’s surface as occurs with Lasik. Instead, laser energy is directly applied to the eye’s surface. The ultra thin, outer layer of the eye (epithelium and superficial stroma of cornea) is removed completely by laser energy during a PRK procedure, and epithelial eventually grows back. As per the respondents data shows that 17.5% of the patients who have undergone Lasik surgery report night vision problem i.e. difficulty in night driving. Factors contributing to night driving problems include a post-operative decrease in contrast sensitivity and starburst and halos around lights at night.
4. It being settled law that a person seeking employment to a public post has to be evaluated on the prescribed standards, it would be profitable for us to note the medical standard prescribed for eye sight by the Indian Railways.
5. The relevant portion of the Indian Railways Medical Manual, 2000 pertaining to the standards for visual acuity are as under:-
Para 512 (i) Acuity of Vision:
| Class | Distant Vision | Near Vision |
| A-1 | 6/6, 6/6 without glasses with fogging test (must not accept +2D) | Sn.0.6, 0.6 without glasses |
| A-2 | 6/9, 6/9 without glasses (no fogging test) | Do |
| A-3 | 6/9, 6/9 with or without glasses. Power of lenses not to exceed 2D. | Sn.0.6, 0.6 with or without glasses. |
| B-1 | 6/9, 6/12 with or without Power of lenses not close work is required to exceed 4D. | Sn. 0.6, 0.6 with or without glasses when reading or glasses. |
| B-2 | same as above | Do |
| C-1 | 6/12, 6/18 with or without glasses. | Do |
| C-2 | 6/12, nil with or without or without glasses | Sn. 0.6 combined with OR WITHOUT glasses where reading or close work is required |
6. Para 512 of the aforesaid medical manual reads:-
“512 (9) Radial Keratotomy: Candidates: having undergone Radial Keratotomy may not be considered for recruitment to A-1, A-2, A-3 and B-1 categories. However candidates with such operation may be considered for recruitment in B-2 categories and below, if otherwise medically fit.
Employees : working in categories A-1, A-2, A-3, and B-1, who have undergone Radial keratotomy should
