The Delhi High Court has affirmed that candidates with vision defects or deformities—such as colour vision defects, substandard unaided vision, or other ophthalmic issues—can be held unfit for certain government or security service positions where medical standards are strictly prescribed. The Court held that these standards are not merely formalities but are essential, particularly in roles where good vision (including unaided or certain minimum levels of unaided vision, free from certain defects) is crucial to performing duties demanded by the nature of the service.
In one case, a petitioner examined by the Army’s Research & Referral Hospital was declared unfit due to a colour vision defect (CP-IV level). The petitioner had sought relief, but the Court upheld the medical board’s finding, noting that prescribed medical standards for the role required absence of defects/deformity likely to interfere with the efficient performance of duties. Because the candidate did not meet those laid-down standards, the petition failed.
The Court emphasised that allowing exceptions or granting relaxation from preset medical fitness criteria undermines the principle of national security and the operational requirements of sensitive services. Where recruitment notices explicitly prescribe fitness standards (free of defects, deformity, disease etc.), courts have held that those are not negotiable. Recruiting agencies have wide discretion to set medical criteria, and courts will give deference to those when they are laid out in recruitment advertisement or regulations, unless there is demonstrable arbitrariness or violation of constitutional guarantees.
Furthermore, the judgment clarified that these medical standards (including vision-related ones) are not just about cosmetic or minor impairments; what matters is whether the defect is “likely to interfere with efficient performance” of duties. If yes, then non-compliance with the medical standard justifies rejection or disqualification—even if the candidate or some doctors claim functioning ability.
In sum, the Court reaffirmed that in recruitment to sensitive or security-adjacent posts, medical fitness—especially vision standards—are not a mere technicality. They are critical for performance and safety, and any deviation or relaxation threatens both the integrity of the role and potentially, national security.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.