Service Law / Recruitment / Medical Fitness

Summarized by Adv. Om Narayan Pandey|Verified by Adv. Om Narayan Pandey, Supreme Court of India 0 views

Can a recruitment authority reject a candidate based on a disputed medical finding?

Supreme Court Orders Police Constable Appointment After Medical Board Clears Squint Eye Allegation

Case: Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors.Citation: 2026 INSC 1184Decided on: 02 November 2026

What this case means

A woman candidate was declared medically unfit for police constable recruitment due to alleged squint eye. The Supreme Court directed KGMU Lucknow to conduct an independent eye examination, which found her vision normal. The Court set aside the rejection and ordered her appointment, holding she had been deprived of a legitimate right.

“The Supreme Court ordered appointment of a police constable candidate whose eye examination by KGMU found her vision normal, overturning the medical board's finding of squint.”

Share:

Story Slides

Case at a glance1 / 5

Supreme Court of India

Police Constable Appointment Ordered After Independent Eye Test Clears Candidate

Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors. | 2026 INSC 1184

Court: Supreme Court of India; Date: 02 November 2026Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. PancholiArea of Law: Service Law / Recruitment / Medical FitnessRecruitment: UP Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment 2023

Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors. · 2026 INSC 118402 November 2026

The legal question2 / 5

Can a Candidate Be Denied Appointment Based on a Disputed Medical Finding?

Core legal issue in this appeal

Appellant: Medical board declared her unfit orally with no written order; independent doctors found vision normal.
Appellant: She had cleared all prior stages and held a call letter; rejection was arbitrary and unfair.
Respondent: Selection process had already concluded; High Court refused to interfere on that ground.
Respondent: Division Medical Board re-examination under Rule 15(6)(d) confirmed the original finding of squint.

Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors. · 2026 INSC 118402 November 2026

The Court's reasoning3 / 5

How the Court Reached Its Decision

Step-by-step reasoning

1Step 1: Appellant cleared DV and PST; issued call letter for medical exam.
2Step 2: Medical board and Division Medical Board declared her unfit for squint; no written order given.
3Step 3: Independent Kanpur doctors found vision normal; High Court still dismissed her petition.
4Step 4: Supreme Court directed KGMU Lucknow to constitute an ophthalmology expert board for independent examination.
5Step 5: KGMU report found 6/6 vision in both eyes and all parameters normal; Court ordered appointment.

Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors. · 2026 INSC 118402 November 2026

The verdict4 / 5

The Supreme Court's Final Decision

Appeal allowed; appointment directed

The Fact: Appellant was declared medically unfit for squint; KGMU found her vision 6/6 and all parameters normal.
The Law: Rule 15(6)(d) of UP Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules 2015 governs re-examination; fairness requires an authoritative independent report.
The Result: High Court order set aside; respondents directed to issue appointment order or call letter if she is otherwise entitled.

Respondents directed to issue appointment order; appellant shall not claim seniority over already-appointed candidates.

Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors. · 2026 INSC 118402 November 2026

Why it matters5 / 5

What This Judgment Means for Ordinary People

Practical significance

A government recruitment authority cannot deny appointment based on an oral, unverified medical finding without a written order.
Candidates declared medically unfit can seek an independent examination from a reputed institution to challenge the finding.
The Supreme Court can direct an authoritative independent medical board even after the selection process has concluded.
Appointment ordered with the condition that the successful candidate will not claim seniority over those already appointed.

An oral medical rejection without a written order cannot lawfully end a deserving candidate's recruitment journey.

Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors. · 2026 INSC 118402 November 2026

At a glance (infographic)

Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors. — infographic summary

Download infographic

In short

Akanksha Devi applied for the post of Constable Civil Police under the UP Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. She successfully cleared the Document Verification, Physical Standard Test, and was called for a medical examination scheduled on 22.04.2025. The medical board orally informed her she was unfit due to squint eye. A re-examination by the Division Medical Board on 25.04.2025 under Rule 15(6)(d) of the UP Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 again declared her unfit, but no written rejection order was given. She independently consulted two qualified ophthalmologists at recognized medical institutions in Kanpur, both of whom found her colour perception, variation, and vision to be normal. She submitted a representation on 16.05.2025 seeking a fresh independent medical examination, which was rejected. She then approached the High Court, which dismissed her petition on the ground that the selection process had concluded. Before the Supreme Court, noting a similar situation in SLP Civil No. 17704/2025, the Court directed her to appear before King George's Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, and ordered its Director to constitute a medical board of ophthalmology experts. The KGMU medical board clinically examined her on 08.10.2026 with a team of four doctors. The report found her best corrected vision as 6/6 in both eyes, with all parameters within normal limits, and noted only an intermittent exotropia with good control and a deviation ranging from -5 to -8 degrees. The Supreme Court found this report persuasive, set aside the High Court's dismissal, and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order or call letter, subject to her otherwise being entitled, while clarifying that she would not claim seniority over already-appointed candidates.

Need clarity on a similar legal issue?

Request free pro bono guidance from a Supreme Court Advocate.

Request Guidance

Background

Akanksha Devi was a candidate in the UP Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment 2023. After clearing the Document Verification and Physical Standard Test, she appeared for a medical examination on 22.04.2025, where she was orally declared unfit due to squint eye. A re-examination by the Division Medical Board on 25.04.2025 again declared her unfit, but no written rejection order was issued to her.

The Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the appellant's petition and directed the respondents to issue an order of appointment or call letter to the appellant if she is otherwise entitled. The Court clarified that the appellant shall not claim seniority over candidates who have already been appointed till date.

Why it matters for you

This judgment protects candidates from arbitrary medical rejections in government recruitment by ensuring an independent and credible medical opinion can override a flawed initial assessment. It affirms that a candidate who has cleared all stages and holds a call letter cannot be denied appointment on the basis of an oral, unverified medical finding. It also establishes that such disputes can be remedied even after the selection process is declared concluded.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Key Acts and sections cited or relied upon in this judgment

‘Rule 15(6)(d), UP Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017)’

“This rule provides for re-examination by a Division Medical Board after initial medical rejection; it was applied when the Appellant was re-examined on 25.04.2025 by the Division Medical Board, which again declared her unfit.”

Full text of the judgment

Text extracted from Akanksha Devi vs State of U.P. & Ors.. For the authoritative version refer to the Supreme Court of India's official website.

2026 INSC 1184 SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026

Page 1 of 7

NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.14041 OF 2026 Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14082 of 2026

AKANKSHA DEVI ...APPELLANT(S)

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Heard. Leave granted. 2. The short point which arises for consideration in the present appeal relates to recruitment of the Appellant to the post of Constable Civil Police under U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. Appellant was issued a call letter by the competent authority for Document Verification (DV) Digitally signed by NEHA GUPTA Date: 2026.11.02 17:08:04 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026

Page 2 of 7

and Physical Standard Test (PST) requiring her to appear at Reserves Police Line, Kanpur Dehat on 28.12.2024 at 09:00 am and she successfully cleared the said tests and her name was included in the qualified list of candidates for the next phase of selection as evident from Annexure-P4. Hence, Appellant was issued call letter for medical examination to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the competent authority. The examination was scheduled to be held on 22.04.2025 as intimated to the Appellant vide call letter dated 15.04.2025 Annexure-P5. Accordingly, the Appellant appeared before the medical board on 22.04.2025 and she is said to have been orally informed by the examining authority that she was unfit due to alleged defect in the eyes (squint eye). After her rejection in the medical examination conducted on 22.04.2025 a re-examination was conducted by the Division Medical Board on 25.04.2025 as per Rule 15(6)(d) of the UP Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 as amended in 2017, which

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026

Page 3 of 7

again declared her medically unfit on account of squint. However, no rejection order or endorsement was furnished to the Appellant. Hence, Appellant is said to have independently approached two qualified medical institutions including Dr. Parvej Khan, Professor and Dean of the Eye Department, G.S.V.M Medical College and Associated Hospital, Kanpur and Dr. Rizwan Ahmad M.S. Consultant Eye Surgeon, UHM District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, who found her colour perception/variation were normal including vision and thereby casting a serious doubt on the correctness and fairness of the initial medical assessment made by the medical board constituted by the respondent authority. Based on these two reports, Appellant submitted a representation on 16.05.2025 seeking for a fresh medical examination before an independent institution or competent authority including the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. Same having been rejected, she approached the jurisdictional High Court for a direction to re-conduct the

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026

Page 4 of 7

medical examination which came to be dismissed by the impugned order on the ground of selection process having been concluded. Hence, this appeal. 3. Taking note of the fact that under similar circumstances this court in SLP Civil No. 17704/2025 had constituted a medical board for ascertaining the opinion with respect to the medical fitness of the Appellant therein, by our order dated 15.09.26, we directed the Appellant to appear before King George’s Medical University, Lucknow and issued a direction to the Director of the University to constitute a medical board comprising of experts in Ophthalmology and to submit a Report/Opinion after evaluating or examining the Appellant herein with respect to the medical fitness of the Appellant and specifically with reference to the squint eyes since the Appellant had been deprived of the employment after having been issued with a call letter and denied the same due to alleged defect in the eyes (squint eye).

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026

Page 5 of 7

4. The learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid hospital has placed on record the Report of the committee date 16.10.2026. Perusal of the same would disclose that appellant has been clinically examined on 08.10.2026 by a team four (4) doctors and they have opined as under: - “ MEDICAL REPORT (As per documents available) Patient Akanksha Devi, 23/female, R/O-, Kanpur dehat presented to us on 08/10/2026 in Eye department, K.G.M.U. On Examination on 08/10/2026

Right eye Left eye VISION (BEST CORRECTED) on Digital vision charting Reading 6/6 Reading 6/6 Near Vision N6 N6 PUPILLARY REACTION +/+ +/+ Orbital margin Digitally within normal limits Digitally within normal limits Orbital Tonometry Digitally within normal limits. Digitally within normal limits Ocular direction Straight Straight Ocular position Full in all gazes Full in all gazes Ocular movement Within normal limits Within normal limits ANTERIOR SEGMENT Within normal limits Within normal limits FUNDUS Within normal limits Within normal limits Axial Length (mm) 22.70 22.71 Anterior Chamber Depth (mm) 3.39 3.35 Lens Thickness (mm) 3.38 3.34 Retinoscopy +1.25 D at 70 degree and +1.5 D at 150 degree +1.5 D at 90 degree and +1.75 OD at 180 degree Fundus photo Within normal limits Within normal limits

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026

Page 6 of 7

OCT Macula Within normal limits Within normal limits OCT Disc Within normal limits Within normal limits Visual Field Within normal limits Within normal limits Corneal Topography Within normal limits Within normal limits OCT Cornea Within normal limits

Within normal limits OCT RNFL Within normal limits Within normal limits ORTHOPTIC CLINIC OPINION: Exophoria to Intermittent Exotropia with good control Poor attempt to converge. Deviation is larger in upgaze and for distance fixation. Deviation manifests after patch test. Deviation is larger in upgaze and for distance fixation. Stereopsis is present for distance and near (when deviation is controlled) and alternate suppression (when manifest) Deviation ranges from -5 degree to -8 degrees Signatures and stamps appear on the original report.”

5. The aforesaid Report would persuade us to accept the plea of the Appellant of having been deprived of her legitimate right for being appointed to the post of Police Constable Civil Police after having successfully cleared all the tests. We are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of the instant case and particularly in the teeth of the medical board of King George’s Medical University, Department of Ophthalmology, Lucknow certifying her vision as proper/normal, we set aside the impugned order, allow this

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026

Page 7 of 7

appeal and direct the respondents to issue order of appointment/call letter if she is otherwise entitled to and we make it explicitly clear that the Appellant shall not claim seniority over the candidates who have already been appointed till date. 6. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand consigned to records.

………...........................................J. [ARAVIND KUMAR]

.………...........................................J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 02nd, 2026.

AI-assisted summary, reviewed and verified by our editorial team.

In the Court's words

“we are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of the instant case and particularly in the teeth of the medical board of King George's Medical University, Department of Ophthalmology, Lucknow certifying her vision as proper/normal, we set aside the impugned order”

“the Appellant had been deprived of the employment after having been issued with a call letter and denied the same due to alleged defect in the eyes (squint eye)”

“we direct the respondents to issue order of appointment/call letter if she is otherwise entitled to and we make it explicitly clear that the Appellant shall not claim seniority over the candidates who have already been appointed till date”

Need help with your case?

Facing a similar legal challenge in the Supreme Court or High Court? Connect with our pro bono volunteer advocates today.

Related Supreme Court services

Service & Promotion Appeals All Supreme Court lawyers

Request Free Callback

Advocates handling Service Law / Recruitment / Medical Fitness

Adv Shiv Kumar Tripathi Adv. Hanumant Singh Adv. Narendra Deo Arya