Arjun Panwar Mr. Prahil Sharma, Ms. Muskaan Dutta and Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. In response to an Advertisement Notice issued by the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force1 on 13 July 2024, for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) on compassionate grounds, the petitioner, whose father had been a Constable in the CRPF and had died in harness, applied. Under the head “Eligibility Criteria”, it was specifically provided, with respect to the prescribed medical standard, that candidates who had undergone visual2 correction of any kind, even with glasses, would not be eligible 1 "CRPF" hereinafter 2 sic vision W.P.(C) 14716/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.08.2025 12:47:04 for the post. Despite the fact that the petitioner had undergone vision correction using LASIK surgery, he applied. He cleared all rounds of the selection but was disqualified in his medical examination which took place on 21 August 2024 on the ground that he undergone vision correction using LASIK surgery in both eyes. He was referred to a Review Medical Board which concurred with the opinion. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

According to the averments in the writ petition, the stipulation in the Advertisement, disqualifying candidates who had undergone visual correction, was based on a Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs3, under the subject “Policy Guidelines on Visual Standards for recruitment/retention in respect of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) and Assam Rifles (ARs) personnel”. The following paragraphs, from the said Circular, are relevant: “Annexure - VI CONFIDENTIAL FNo.I-45024/1/2008-Pers.II Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/GrihMantralaya [Police-II Division] North Block, New Delhi May 18th, 2012 Sub: Policy Guidelines recruitment/retention in respect of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) and Assam Rifles (ARs) personnel. on Visual Standards The issue regarding the visual standards to be set for the CAPF and Assam Rifles personnel had been under consideration in this Ministry particularly with regard to the cases of Colour 3 "MHA" hereinafter W.P.(C) 14716/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.08.2025 12:47:04 Blindness, The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP No. 686/2011 and WP No. 1142/2011 had also directed the Government to notify the revised visual standards.

2. The said matter has been examined in this Ministry and it has been felt that there cannot be one standard for all the Force personnel who are recruited in various cadres. Furthermore, with the recent techniques and the advancement in the filed of eye surgery, there are many methods now available for correction of distant vision like LASIK, Additionally, there has been a significant transformation in the job profile of the CAPF personnel and the methods of border guarding as well as the way warfare is conducted, The armamentarium of sophisticated detection and combat gadget has made redundant certain stringent visual standards hitherto considered essential. Furthermore, due to these stringent standards, the CAPFs and ARs are losing out on recruiting candidates. This coupled with the lack of attraction towards the Forces as a career option among the youth has led to a situation where there is a shortfall in the induction of officers, non- gazetted officers and personnel in other ranks. ***** The said board had submitted its recommendations wherein 4. while stating that there is necessity to review the visual standards in CAPFs &ARs to avoid litigations, they have also observed that: ***** h. All the Direct Appointed Gazetted Officers (DAGOs) in CAPFs and ARs are graduate. LASIK is proposed as an acceptable method for vision correction for all DAGOs for selection in CAPFs/ARs. The acceptance standards for these surgeries are to be made uniform across the CAPFs as under: i) ii) iii) Uncomplicated surgery Surgery atleast 6 months before examination Axial length < 26 or > 211 mm by IOL Master or A Scan iv) Residual corneal thickness 425 micron v) Residual refraction < +/-0.75 D sph or cyl vi) Normal retinal examination. No evidence of laser, retinal detachment or peripheral retinal lesions requiring treatment. No suspicion of myopic maculopathy optic disc assessment to be unambiguously noted in terms of disc size, CD ratio, adherence to ISNT rule (inferior neuroretinal rim to be thicker than superior, followed by nasal and temporal rim being the thinnest) presence of Nerve fibre layer defects W.P.(C) 14716/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.08.2025 12:47:04 and perpapillary atrophy or nerve fibre layer hemorrhages. Family history of glaucoma must be mentioned. These standards are proposed based on the evidence that flap and refractive stability and quality of vision stabilization usually occur within six months in most cases. Studies in the US military have reported increased reports of glare, haze and haloes at night during the first month after treatment when compared with experiences with either glasses or contact lenses before LASIK. These complaints were higher in the treated compared with the untreated eyes at 1 month, but complaints were reduced by 3 months after treatment and indistinguishable from preoperative levels by 6 months. *****

7. In view of the above recommendations of the board, the complete report of the board was got vetted by the MoH&FW and now it is proposed that the visual standards for the various levels of personnel in the CAPFs & Assam Rifles shall be as detailed in Annexure-I as New Standards separately for: Direct Appointed Gazetted Officers (DAGOs) a. {Table-1} Other Gazetted Officers {Table-2} b. Direct Entry SOs&ORs {Table-3} c. Direct Entry Tradesmen/Followers (Table-4) d. e. Ex-Servicemen/Ex-CAPFs Ministerial/ Technical personnel / LDCE Groups of SOs/ORs/Followers {Table- 5) The LASIK standards for Gazetted Officers shall be as per Table-L of Annexure-I. The existing standards for each of the above category have also been shown in the said table alongwith the New Standards. ***** (Neeraj Kansal) Director (Pers.) Telefax: 2309 2933”

3. The petitioner’s primary contention is that there is no justifiable reason to discriminate between gazetted and non-gazetted officers, insofar as their entitlement for recruitment to the post of Head Constable is concerned, once they have undergone vision correction W.P.(C) 14716/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.08.2025 12:47:04 using LASIK surgery. Mr Chhibber submits that this distinction is invidious, and is not founded on any intelligible differentia and, therefore, infracts Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. The writ petition, therefore, prays that the Policy Guidelines dated 18 May 2012 issued by the MHA, to the extent they treat only gazetted officers who have undergone vision correction by LASIK surgery as eligible for recruitment to the post of Head Constable, be quashed and set aside. A declaration is sought, to the effect that the same benefit would be available to non-gazetted officers and, consequently, it is also prayed that the result of the Review Medical Examination of the petitioner be quashed and set aside, and that he be re-examined by a fresh Review Medical Board and, if found fit, be appointed as Head Constable.

5. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nishant Gautam, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, at length.

6. We are constrained to observe that the counter-affidavit, filed by way of response to the writ petition, is profoundly unsatisfactory, as it does not even address the main bone of contention in the writ petition, which is that the discrimination between gazetted and non- gazetted officers, insofar as their entitlement to recruitment as Head Constable after they have undergone vision correction by LASIK surgery, is invidious. All that the counter-affidavit states, in this regard, is the following: W.P.(C) 14716/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.08.2025 12:47:04 That the policy of the Respondents allowing only gazetted “II. officers to be selected after doing a LASIK surgery is a valid classification based on sound policy decision and the Respondent craves leave to place on record the reasoning if required by this Hon’ble Court.” (Emphasis supplied) We do not see why it requires an invitation from the Court for the respondents to meet the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition. We, however, forbear from saying anything further.

7. The counter-affidavit, almost entirely, advances only one contention by way of challenge to the writ petition, which is that, having participated in the selection process in full knowledge of the delimiting condition stipulated in the Advertisement, the petitioner could not seek to challenge the condition itself, having failed to obtain selection. Mr. Nishant Gautam, learned CGSC, relies, for this purpose, on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Dr Manu Banga v Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women4, incidentally authored by one of us (C. Hari Shankar J).

8. Responding to the submission, Mr. Chhibber places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai v State of Bihar5, which holds that a candidate who participates in a selection does not consent to the illegalities in the selection process and cannot, therefore, be estopped from challenging the selection, even if he is not successful. 4 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7315 5 (2019) 20 SCC 17 W.P.(C) 14716/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.08.2025 12:47:04

9. Mr. Chhibber further submits that, in any case, the respondents could not have enforced the stipulation, in the Advertisement, disqualifying candidates who had undergone vision correction surgery, as the said condition was premised from the MHA Policy Guidelines dated 18 May 2012 which, to the extent they distinguished between gazetted and non-gazetted officers insofar as their entitlement for recruitment to the CAPFs after having undergone LASIK vision correction, is concerned, were struck down by the High Court of Meghalaya in Naresh Kumari v UOI6. He submits that a criterion which stands struck down by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be enforced by any executive authority in the country. Analysis

10. Having heard learned Counsel and applied ourselves to the record, we regret our inability to come to the aid of the petitioner, for the following reasons: (i) The petitioner participated in the selection process following the Advertisement Notice dated 13 July 2024 with full knowledge of the fact that he was ineligible, in view of Clause 6 of the Advertisement, which sets out the applicable medical standards, and specifically stipulated that vision correction of refractive errors of any kind would not be permissible. 6 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 144 W.P.(C) 14716/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:25.08.2025 12:47:04 (ii) The advertisement was limited only to one post of Head Constable (Ministerial). As such, having participated in the selection following the advertisement, with full knowledge that he was ineligible for selection, the petitioner cannot now seek to challenge the aforenoted stipulation. We may note that the advertisement does not deal with any other post, Gazetted or Non-Gazetted. The law in this regard stands settled by the decisions in Rekha Sharma v Rajasthan High Court7 and Tajvir Singh Sodhi v State of J & K8, from which the following paragraphs merit reproduction: From Rekha Sharma “16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations.” (Emphasis supplied) From Tajvir Singh Sodhi “38.1. In Manish Kumar Shahi v State of Bihar9, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.

38.2. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v Anil Joshi10, an advertisement was appointment for the post of Physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process inviting applications issued