Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has come to the aid of a woman candidate who was denied appointment to the post of Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police on the ground that she allegedly suffered from a squint eye, despite an independent medical examination subsequently certifying her eyesight as proper and normal. Emphasising the importance of fairness and objectivity in recruitment processes, the Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to issue her an appointment order or call letter, subject to her satisfying the other applicable eligibility conditions.

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal filed by Akanksha Devi, setting aside the order of the High Court that had declined to interfere with her non-selection. The Supreme Court observed that the medical certificate issued by the Department of Ophthalmology, King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, provided a sufficient basis for granting relief in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

The dispute arose during the recruitment process for the post of Constable Civil Police in Uttar Pradesh. Akanksha Devi had participated in the selection process and was called for Document Verification (DV) and the Physical Standard Test (PST) at the Reserve Police Line, Kanpur Dehat, on December 28, 2024. She successfully cleared these stages, following which her name was included in the list of candidates qualified to proceed to the next phase of recruitment.

Thereafter, she was directed to appear before the Medical Board for an assessment of her physical and medical fitness. Although she appeared before the Board, she was allegedly informed orally that she had been declared medically unfit because of a suspected squint eye. The finding effectively prevented her from progressing further in the recruitment process.

In accordance with Rule 15(6)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017, the appellant underwent a re-examination before the Division Medical Board. However, the subsequent medical assessment also declared her unfit on the same ground of an alleged squint eye.

An important aspect of the controversy was that the appellant was not furnished with a formal rejection order or any written endorsement explaining the medical finding that had resulted in her disqualification. The absence of a communicated decision further complicated her ability to effectively challenge the medical assessment.

Questioning the correctness of the findings, Akanksha Devi independently approached two qualified medical institutions. Both institutions reportedly examined her eyesight and found her colour perception and vision to be normal. These medical reports raised serious doubts regarding the correctness of the conclusion reached by the recruitment authorities.

Relying on these independent assessments, she submitted a representation requesting that she be subjected to another medical examination before an independent medical institution. However, her request was rejected, leaving her with no effective option except to approach the High Court.

The High Court declined to grant relief, primarily observing that the recruitment process had already concluded. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court adopted an independent verification mechanism to resolve the medical dispute. By an order dated September 15, 2026, the Court directed Akanksha Devi to appear before King George’s Medical University, Lucknow. It also directed the University’s Director to constitute a medical board comprising specialists in Ophthalmology to examine her specifically with reference to the allegation of squint eyes.

The medical board constituted at KGMU examined the appellant and issued a certificate confirming that her eyesight was proper and normal. In light of this independent medical assessment, the Supreme Court found sufficient justification to interfere with the earlier decision denying her appointment.

The judgment is significant because it highlights the importance of reliable medical assessments in public recruitment and reinforces that administrative decisions affecting a candidate’s career cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a disputed medical finding, particularly when a subsequent examination by a specialised independent institution contradicts the original conclusion.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellant, Akanksha Devi, challenged the denial of appointment on the ground that the medical disqualification imposed upon her was unjustified and unsupported by the subsequent medical evidence.

Her principal grievance was that she had successfully cleared the earlier stages of the recruitment process, including document verification and the Physical Standard Test, and had qualified for the subsequent medical examination. However, despite her satisfactory performance in the preceding stages, she was denied further consideration solely because the Medical Board allegedly found her to have a squint eye.

The appellant questioned the reliability of this finding, particularly because she had not been provided with a formal written rejection order or an endorsement setting out the reasons for her medical disqualification. She was allegedly informed only orally that she had been declared unfit.

According to her case, such an approach deprived her of a clear and reasoned decision that could be meaningfully challenged before the appropriate authorities. A candidate facing rejection on medical grounds should be informed of the specific basis for the decision, especially where the finding concerns a physical condition that can be independently examined and medically verified.

The appellant further relied upon the reports obtained from two qualified medical institutions. These institutions had examined her and certified that her eyesight and colour perception were normal. The medical findings directly contradicted the conclusion reached by the recruitment authorities and created a legitimate basis for questioning the fairness of the original assessment.

She therefore requested the authorities to arrange another medical examination through an independent institution so that her eligibility could be determined objectively. However, the authorities rejected her representation.

The appellant also challenged the High Court’s decision to deny relief merely because the recruitment process had concluded. Her case was that the completion of the selection process could not automatically extinguish her right to challenge an allegedly erroneous medical disqualification.

She had participated in the recruitment process, cleared the prescribed preliminary stages and was prevented from securing appointment because of a disputed medical assessment. Therefore, according to her, the authorities were required to consider the correctness of that assessment rather than reject her claim solely on the ground that the recruitment exercise had reached its conclusion.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s grievance consequently centred on the need for an independent and reliable medical assessment and the consequences of an incorrect medical finding in a public employment selection process.

On the other hand, the respondent authorities, representing the Uttar Pradesh Government and the recruitment administration, had maintained the medical unfitness finding recorded during the recruitment process. The appellant had first been examined by the Medical Board and was subsequently subjected to re-examination by the Division Medical Board under Rule 15(6)(d) of the applicable service rules.

Both assessments reportedly resulted in the same conclusion that she suffered from a squint eye and was medically unfit for the post. The respondents’ position was therefore supported by the findings of the medical authorities constituted under the recruitment framework.

The High Court had also declined to interfere, taking into account the fact that the selection process had already concluded. This formed an important part of the background against which the respondents defended the decision denying the appellant’s claim.

However, the available case summary does not reproduce the detailed written submissions or specific legal objections advanced by the respondents before the Supreme Court. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute additional arguments to the State.

The central controversy before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant’s disqualification could continue to operate when independent medical findings contradicted the earlier assessment and whether the completion of the recruitment process was sufficient justification for refusing to examine her grievance.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to issue an appointment order or call letter to Akanksha Devi, provided she was otherwise entitled to appointment under the applicable recruitment conditions.

The Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi placed considerable emphasis on the medical certificate issued by King George’s Medical University, Lucknow. The specialised medical board constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions had examined the appellant and certified that her eyesight was proper and normal.

The Court considered this independent medical assessment particularly significant because the appellant’s candidature had been rejected on the specific ground that she allegedly suffered from a squint eye. The subsequent examination by a specialised medical institution directly addressed the very medical condition that had formed the basis of her disqualification.

Independent Medical Examination and the Correctness of the Disqualification

A central feature of the judgment was the Supreme Court’s decision to obtain an independent medical opinion instead of relying exclusively on the earlier findings recorded during the recruitment process.

The Court, by its order dated September 15, 2026, directed the appellant to appear before King George’s Medical University, Lucknow. The Director of the University was asked to constitute a medical board consisting of experts in Ophthalmology to examine her, specifically with reference to the allegation of squint eyes.

This direction was important because the controversy was essentially medical in nature. The appellant’s eligibility had been questioned on the basis of an alleged ophthalmological condition. Therefore, an examination by specialists in the relevant medical field provided an appropriate means of determining whether the original disqualification was justified.

The medical board at KGMU examined the appellant and issued a certificate confirming that her eyesight was proper and normal.

The Supreme Court took note of this finding while considering the legality of the decision denying her appointment. The independent assessment undermined the medical basis on which the appellant had originally been declared unfit.

The Court consequently found that the peculiar facts of the case warranted interference with the decisions of the authorities and the High Court.

Importance of Rule 15(6)(d) of the UP Police Service Rules

The judgment also arose in the context of Rule 15(6)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017.

The appellant had undergone a re-examination before the Division Medical Board under this provision after the initial Medical Board declared her unfit.

The fact that the second medical assessment also resulted in a finding of unfitness was an important aspect of the recruitment authorities’ position. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court considered the subsequent independent examination by KGMU, which had been specifically directed by the Court, to be decisive in the peculiar circumstances.

The ruling demonstrates the significance of ensuring that medical eligibility decisions are supported by reliable findings, particularly when a candidate produces contrary medical material and seeks an objective reassessment.

It also illustrates that the existence of an earlier medical opinion does not necessarily prevent judicial scrutiny where the correctness of that opinion is seriously disputed and the circumstances justify independent verification.

Medical Fitness Cannot Be Determined on an Unverified or Disputed Finding

The Court’s decision highlights the importance of fairness in medical examinations conducted as part of public recruitment.

Medical fitness requirements serve a legitimate purpose in recruitment to the police force. Candidates must satisfy the prescribed standards because the nature of the duties associated with police service may require particular physical and medical capabilities.

However, the existence of medical standards does not mean that recruitment authorities can disregard the need for accurate and objective assessment. A candidate should not be excluded from public employment on the basis of a medical finding that is subsequently contradicted by a specialised independent examination.

In the present case, the appellant had obtained reports from two qualified medical institutions indicating that her vision and colour perception were normal. These reports raised questions concerning the correctness of the initial medical assessment.

Instead of accepting the appellant’s request for another examination, the authorities rejected her representation. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which considered it appropriate to obtain an independent assessment from KGMU.

The certificate issued by the University’s Department of Ophthalmology confirmed that the appellant’s eyesight was normal. This provided an objective medical basis for setting aside the decision that had deprived her of the opportunity to secure appointment.

The judgment reinforces the broader principle that decisions affecting access to public employment must be based on relevant, reliable and fairly assessed material.

Completion of the Recruitment Process Not an Absolute Bar to Relief

Another important aspect of the case concerns the High Court’s refusal to interfere on the ground that the recruitment process had already concluded.

The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates that the completion of a selection exercise does not necessarily prevent judicial intervention where an individual candidate establishes that her exclusion was based on an incorrect assessment.

Although courts ordinarily exercise caution in interfering with completed recruitment processes, that consideration cannot operate as an automatic bar against examining an allegedly unlawful disqualification.

In this case, the appellant had successfully cleared the document verification and physical standard stages. Her candidature was subsequently affected by a disputed medical finding, which was contradicted by the independent examination conducted at the direction of the Supreme Court.

The Court considered these circumstances sufficient to justify granting relief despite the conclusion of the recruitment process.

This aspect of the judgment is particularly relevant to candidates who are excluded from public employment on medical grounds. Where the medical assessment itself becomes the subject of a genuine dispute supported by independent evidence, the authorities cannot necessarily rely upon the completion of the recruitment exercise to avoid scrutiny.

Direction to Issue Appointment Order

After considering the medical certificate issued by KGMU, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to relief.

The Bench observed that, in view of the peculiar facts of the case and particularly the certificate issued by the Department of Ophthalmology at King George’s Medical University certifying her vision as proper and normal, the impugned order could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal. It directed the respondents to issue an appointment order or call letter to the appellant, subject to her being otherwise eligible and entitled to appointment.

However, the Court also imposed an important qualification concerning seniority.

It expressly clarified that Akanksha Devi would not be entitled to claim seniority over candidates who had already been appointed by that date.

This condition ensures that the relief granted to the appellant does not disturb the settled position of candidates who have already secured appointment through the recruitment process. At the same time, it provides the appellant an opportunity to obtain the appointment that had been denied to her on the basis of the disputed medical assessment.

The direction therefore balances the appellant’s entitlement to fair consideration with the administrative and service-related interests of candidates who have already been appointed.

Significance of the Judgment

The decision is an important reminder that medical assessments in public recruitment must be fair, accurate and capable of objective verification. While recruitment authorities are entitled to prescribe medical standards and enforce eligibility requirements, their decisions must rest on reliable medical findings.

The judgment also highlights the role of constitutional courts in ensuring that administrative decisions do not result in unjust exclusion from public employment. Where a candidate produces credible medical evidence contradicting the findings of the recruitment authorities, an independent assessment may become necessary to ensure fairness.

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not dispense with the medical eligibility requirements applicable to police recruitment. Instead, it examined whether the appellant had actually failed to satisfy those requirements in light of the independent medical certificate.

By directing the appointment of Akanksha Devi, subject to her otherwise being eligible, the Court ensured that a disputed medical finding would not continue to operate as an obstacle to her employment after an independent specialist examination had certified her eyesight as normal.

Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the principle that public recruitment must be governed by fairness, objectivity and reasoned decision-making. A candidate’s opportunity to enter public service cannot be denied on the basis of a medical conclusion that does not withstand independent scrutiny. At the same time, the Court’s clarification regarding seniority protects the position of candidates who have already been appointed.

The ruling thus provides an important example of judicial intervention where an independent medical assessment exposes serious doubts about the basis of a candidate’s disqualification and reinforces the requirement that public authorities exercise their recruitment powers fairly and responsibly.