Delhi High Court
Sumit Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 October, 2025
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16377/2025, CM APPL. 67130/2025, CM APPL.
67131/2025
SUMIT KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kasana, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Akash Chatterjee, SPC
with Mr. Vivek Nagar, GP, Mr. Vinod
Sawant, Law Officer, CRPF, Insp Athurv,
CRPF, Mr. Inderpal and Mr. Ramniwas
Yadav, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 29.10.2025
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner has been concurrently disqualified by the
Detailed Medical Examination1 and Review Medical Examination2,
which considered his candidature for the post of Assistant
Commandant and found that he was not suitable as he suffers from
"early ectasia" in both eyes.
2. Ectasia is defined, in the database of the National Library of
Medicine3, as "a rare condition characterized by the abnormal dilation
1 "DME", hereinafter
2 "RME", hereinafter
3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541130/
of coronary arteries, which can lead to impaired blood flow and
increased risk of ischemia".
3. Mr. Vijay Kasana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits
that ectasia is not one of the disqualifying ailments stipulated in the
guidelines for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant as
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs4.
4. However, learned Counsel for the respondents points out that
the petitioner had undergone LASIK surgery and that the ectasia had
developed after the surgery as a complication thereof. He further
submits that the petitioner did not disclose the fact that he had
undergone a LASIK surgery to the respondents.
5. We are not entering into the aspect of whether there was any
failure to disclose the aspect of undergoing LASIK surgery. However,
though ectasia is not specifically mentioned as a disqualification in the
standards prescribed by the MHA in the aforenoted guidelines, clause
4(h)(i) of the guidelines, while dealing with LASIK surgery, envisages
only a candidate who has undergone uncomplicated LASIK surgery as
being entitled for recruitment.
6. Inasmuch as ectasia is a complication of LASIK surgery, we are
not inclined to agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the ailment from which his client suffers is outside the
guidelines of the MHA.
4 "MHA", hereinafter
7. We have already held in our judgment in Staff Selection
Commission v Aman Singh5, following the earlier judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in Km. Priyanka v UOI6, that, where
there are concurrent findings of the DME and the RME with respect to
disqualification of a candidate, the Court cannot direct a fresh medical
examination.
8. This case is squarely covered by the said decision.
9. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this petition,
which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2025/gunn
5 2024 SCC Online Del 7600
6 2020 SCC Online Del 1851
