This order does not by itself appoint the appellant: appointment follows only if she is otherwise entitled, and she cannot claim seniority over candidates already appointed. It decides this candidate's medical-fitness dispute on its peculiar facts and the university board's report, not a general rule about squint in police recruitment.
- Case
- Akanksha Devi v. State of U.P.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1184
- Bench
- Aravind Kumar; Vipul M. Pancholi
- Judgment by
- Aravind Kumar
- Case numbers
- Civil Appeal No. 14041/2026; SLP (Civil) No. 14082/2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed: the impugned High Court order is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue an order of appointment or call letter if the appellant is otherwise entitled, with no seniority over candidates already appointed.
Appeal allowed; appointment directed if otherwise entitled
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Akanksha Devi, a candidate for the post of Constable Civil Police under the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023, and directed the respondents to issue an order of appointment or call letter if she is otherwise entitled. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the High Court order that had dismissed her writ petition.
The direction rests on a report from a medical board at King George's Medical University, Lucknow, which certified her vision as proper and normal. The Court made it explicitly clear that the appellant shall not claim seniority over candidates who have already been appointed.
Cleared document verification and physical standards, then stopped at medical examination
The appellant was issued a call letter for document verification and the Physical Standard Test, requiring her to appear at the Reserves Police Line, Kanpur Dehat on 28 December 2024 at 9:00 am. She cleared those tests, and her name was included in the qualified list of candidates for the next phase of selection.
She was then issued a call letter dated 15 April 2025 for medical examination before the Medical Board, scheduled for 22 April 2025. She appeared on that date and was orally informed by the examining authority that she was unfit due to an alleged defect in the eyes, described as squint eye.
A second board confirms unfitness; independent opinions disagree; no written order given
After the rejection in the medical examination of 22 April 2025, a re-examination was conducted by the Division Medical Board on 25 April 2025 under Rule 15(6)(d) of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017. That board again declared her medically unfit on account of squint. However, no rejection order or endorsement was furnished to the appellant.
The appellant independently approached two qualified medical institutions: Dr. Parvej Khan, Professor and Dean of the Eye Department at G.S.V.M. Medical College and Associated Hospital, Kanpur, and Dr. Rizwan Ahmad, M.S. Consultant Eye Surgeon at UHM District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. Both found her colour perception and vision normal, casting serious doubt on the correctness and fairness of the initial medical assessment.
On the basis of those two reports, the appellant submitted a representation on 16 May 2025 seeking a fresh medical examination before an independent institution or competent authority, including the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. That representation was rejected, and she approached the jurisdictional High Court for a direction to re-conduct the medical examination. The High Court dismissed her petition on the ground that the selection process had been concluded, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.
University board examines her and reports vision normal
Noting that in similar circumstances it had constituted a medical board in SLP (Civil) No. 17704/2025, the Supreme Court, by order dated 15 September 2026, directed the appellant to appear before King George's Medical University, Lucknow, and directed the Director of the University to constitute a medical board of ophthalmology experts to report on her medical fitness, specifically with reference to squint eyes. The Court noted she had been deprived of employment after having been issued a call letter and then denied it due to the alleged eye defect.
The committee's report dated 16 October 2026 records that the appellant was clinically examined on 8 October 2026 by a team of four doctors. It records best corrected vision of 6/6 in each eye on digital vision charting, near vision N6 in each eye, straight ocular direction, full ocular position in all gazes, and ocular movement, anterior segment and fundus within normal limits. Its orthoptic clinic opinion records exophoria to intermittent exotropia with good control, poor attempt to converge, deviation ranging from minus 5 degrees to minus 8 degrees, and stereopsis present for distance and near when the deviation is controlled.
Impugned order set aside; appointment direction with a seniority limit
The Court held that the university board's report persuaded it to accept the appellant's plea that she had been deprived of her legitimate right to be appointed to the post of Police Constable Civil Police after having successfully cleared all the tests. In the peculiar facts of the case, and particularly in view of the board certifying her vision as proper and normal, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and directed the respondents to issue an order of appointment or call letter if she is otherwise entitled.
The seniority limit is express: the appellant shall not claim seniority over candidates who have already been appointed till date. Pending applications, if any, stand consigned to records.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: why an independent medical report changed the outcome
The case turns on a familiar administrative-law pattern: a candidate who clears every stage except a medical test, a second board that confirms the first rejection without a written order, and independent expert opinions pointing the other way. The Supreme Court did not resolve the medical dispute by preferring one side's papers; it created a neutral evidentiary record by directing an independent university board to examine the candidate and report.
For examination answers, note the two limits that keep the relief proportionate: appointment only if the candidate is otherwise entitled, and no seniority over those already appointed. Those limits are what allow a court to correct an individual wrong without unravelling a concluded selection process for everyone else.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What did the two medical assessments disagree about, and why did the absence of a written rejection order matter to the candidate's case?
- Why did the Supreme Court send the candidate to King George's Medical University instead of deciding fitness on the papers before it?
- What two limits did the Court place on the appointment direction, and why do they matter?
