$~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 Delhi, “Tribunal” Hereinafter 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), “SI” hereinafter 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, CAPFs, Central Armed Police Forces and Assistant SIs in CISF, Central Industrial Security Force 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.

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.

14. Aggrieved, the Pe