SUMIT KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~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/ Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 16377/2025 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:30.10.2025 17:50:24 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