Supreme Court Orders Appointment of UP Police Constable Candidate Wrongly Rejected for ‘Squint Eye’, Independent medical board at KGMU found Akanksha Devi’s vision normal; Court sets aside High Court order but denies retrospective seniority
The Supreme Court has directed the appointment of Akanksha Devi to the post of Constable Civil Police in Uttar Pradesh after finding that she was wrongly declared medically unfit during the recruitment process on the ground of “squint eye.”
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on 2 November 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 14041 of 2026, setting aside an earlier High Court decision that had refused to order a fresh medical examination on the ground that the selection process had already concluded.
Akanksha Devi had participated in the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. She successfully cleared the document verification and physical standard test and was included in the list of qualified candidates for the next stage. She was then called for a medical examination before the recruitment medical board on 22 April 2025.
According to the judgment, she was orally informed that she had been found medically unfit because of an alleged eye defect described as squint. A re-examination by the Division Medical Board on 25 April 2025, conducted under the applicable service rules, also declared her unfit on the same ground. However, no formal rejection order or written endorsement was furnished to her.
Questioning the correctness of that assessment, the candidate obtained independent medical opinions from two eye specialists in Kanpur, including a professor and dean of the eye department at G.S.V.M. Medical College and a consultant eye surgeon at a district hospital. Both medical opinions indicated that her colour perception and vision were normal, raising doubts about the findings of the recruitment medical boards.
She then submitted a representation on 16 May 2025 seeking a fresh examination by an independent authority, including the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. After her request was rejected, she approached the High Court, which dismissed her plea on the basis that the recruitment process had already ended.
On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that in a similar matter it had previously directed examination by an expert medical board. Following that approach, the Court ordered Akanksha Devi to appear before King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, and asked the university’s director to constitute a board of ophthalmology experts to examine her and report specifically on the allegation of squint.
The medical board at KGMU examined her on 8 October 2026. Its report, dated 16 October 2026, showed that her best corrected vision was 6/6 in both eyes. The report also recorded normal findings in several ophthalmic parameters, including ocular direction, ocular movement, anterior segment, fundus, visual field, corneal topography, and OCT-based tests. The Court noted that the expert board had certified her vision as proper and normal.
Relying on this report, the Bench held that the appellant had been deprived of her legitimate right to appointment after having successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process. The Court said that, in the peculiar facts of the case and particularly in view of the KGMU medical board’s report, the impugned High Court order could not be sustained.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the State authorities to issue an appointment order or call letter to Akanksha Devi if she was otherwise eligible. At the same time, the Bench clarified that she would not be entitled to claim seniority over candidates who had already been appointed.
The ruling is significant for recruitment disputes involving medical unfitness, especially where a candidate challenges the correctness of a medical board’s findings with credible expert evidence. It also underscores the Court’s willingness to intervene where an independent medical evaluation shows that a candidate may have been unjustly denied public employment.
Bottom Line:
Candidate declared medically unfit on ground of squint eye by recruitment medical boards - Independent medical board constituted by Supreme Court found vision proper/normal - Rejection and High Court order set aside - Direction issued to appoint candidate if otherwise eligible, but without claiming seniority over
Statutory provision(s): Rule 15(6)(d) of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017), U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023
Akanksha Devi v. State of U.P., (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 3008846
