##PAGE1##

1

Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1694/2025

Court No. IV

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No. 1694/2025

Reserved on : 13.04.2026

Pronounced on: 30.04.2026

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

ANJU , Age-24 years,

D/o Sh. Rajesh

Rio VPO-Ismaila-9B, District-Rohtak,

Haryana-12450I

Group 'C' (Constable-Exe)

Sub: Appointment

…Applicant

(By Advocates: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chauhan)

Versus

1. Union of India

Through its Secretary,

Department of Personnel & Training,

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,

North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Chairman,

Staff Selection Commission,

Block No.I2, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003

3. The Commissioner of Police

Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,

Behind Parliament Street Police Station,

New Delhi

4. The Additional Commissioner of Police,

Recruitment: Delhi

New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,

Delhi- 110009.

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Bijendera Singh Sharma)

ANKIANKIT

T S 20A 2K 6L .0A 5N .I

SAKL04

ANI 1 +1 0: 51 '32 0:0 '8

2

Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1694/2025

Court No. IV

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

The applicant has preferred the present Original Application

challenging the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, the medical unfitness

report dated 24.01.2024, and the amendment/notification dated 22.10.2018

along with Standing Order HRD/04/2022 and relevant advertisement

conditions, insofar as they disqualify candidates solely on the ground of

having undergone LASIK/refractive eye surgery. It is argued that such

disqualification is illegal, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21

of the Constitution, particularly when similarly placed candidates have been

appointed earlier and other government organizations permit LASIK subject

to conditions. The applicant, having otherwise qualified on merit and

meeting prescribed vision standards, has been unjustly excluded without any

rational basis or consideration of medical advancements. Accordingly, the

applicant seeks quashing of the impugned orders and rules to the extent of

such disqualification, and a direction to restore his candidature and appoint

him to the post of Constable (Exe) with all consequential benefits.

2. Opposing the Original Application, the respondents submitted that the

present O.A. is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the applicant

has been declared medically unfit strictly in accordance with the prescribed

medical standards, including the amended provisions and Standing Order

HRD/04/2022, which clearly disqualify candidates having undergone

LASIK/refractive surgery. It is argued that such standards are policy

decisions taken in the interest of service requirements and uniformity in

recruitment, and cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal. The respondents

ANKIANKIT

T S 20A 2K 6L .0A 5N .I

SAKL04

ANI 1 +1 0: 51 '32 0:0 '8

3

Item No. 24 O.A. No. 1694/2025

Court No. IV

further contend that the issues raised in the present O.A. are identical to

those already addressed in O.A. No. 4301/2024 (Devang Singh vs. Union of

India & Ors.), and the reply filed therein has been duly adopted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the

pleadings available on record.

4. ANALYSIS :

4.1. The issue involved in the present O.A. is no longer res integra in view

of the fact that an identical question concerning the validity of

disqualification on account of LASIK/refractive surgery, arising out of the

same recruitment process and governed by the same set of rules, has already

been considered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 4301/2024 (Devang Singh vs.

Union of India & Ors.) along with a batch of connected matters, which has

been decided today.

4.2. It is also noted that the respondents, in their reply in the present O.A.,

have specifically relied upon and adopted the pleadings and stand taken in

the aforesaid O.A. No. 4301/2024, asserting that the issues involved herein

are identical in facts and law.

4.3. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on

record, we find that