Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No.3150/2024 This the 14th day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Rahul Kumar A ge about 23 years S/o Sh. Pan Singh R/o Nagla Jassa, Kotli Baghichi, Deori Road, Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282001 …Applicant (By Advocate : Ms. Esha Mazumdar with Mr. Setu Niket and Ms. Muskan Sharma)

Versus

1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Northern Region Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2. Delhi Police Through Commissioner o f Police Delhi Police Headquarters Behind Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi-110001

3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, HQ-II Recruitment, Police Headquarters Jai Singh Road New D elhi-110001 …Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. A K Singh )

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“i. Call for records of the case:

ii. Quash & set aside order dated 26/06/2024 passed by the Re Medical Board constituted by the Respondents declaring the Applicant unfit on the ground of defective distant vision;

iii. Pass an order directing the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) Male and Female under 1 SC (Male) category along with all the consequential benefits including seniority, arrears, etc along with interest at GPF rates;

iv. Award cost o f the proceedings; and v. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was a successful candidate in the recruitment process for the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) Male & Female in Delhi Police, 2022, having qualified all four stages of selection, and was declared successful in the final result dated

21.12.2023. There is no dispute regarding the merit, eligibility, or conduct of the applicant.

3.1 It is submitted that the applicant has been declared medically unfit only on the ground of “DEFECTIVE DISTANT VISION 6/12 (RE) AND 6/12 (LE) (As per guidelines provided)” in the Re-Medical Examination dated 26.06.2024. It is respectfully submitted that such rejection is ex facie contrary to Clause 20 of the Recruitment Notification dated

08.07.2022, which governs the field.

3.2 Learned counsel draws the our attention to Clause 20 (Medical Standards) of the notification, which categorically provides as under:

“Better eye 6/6 without glasses. Worse eye 6/36 corrected with glasses 6/9 or 6/12 without glasses (both eyes).”

There is no stipulation whatsoever in the notification prohibiting laser/LASIK surgery or prescribing any exclusion on the basis of mode of vision correction.

3.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents materially supports the case of the applicant. It is submitted that the respondents have themselves placed reliance upon the very same Recruitment Notification governing the selection, and at no point have they been able to point out any clause therein which either prohibits laser/LASIK surgery or authorises rejection of a candidate on the basis of the mode of vision correction.

3.4 It is further submitted that a careful perusal of the counter affidavit would reveal that there is no averment whatsoever indicating that the recruitment notification contains any bar against candidates who have undergone laser surgery. On the contrary, the rejection of the applicant is founded solely on the vague expression “defective distant vision”, without any dispute being raised by the respondents with regard to the applicant satisfying the prescribed numerical standard of vision, namely 6/12 without glasses (both eyes), as mandated under Clause 20 of the Recruitment Notif