SC Directs Appointment of UP Constable Rejected for Squint

Squint Rejection: Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Constable Candidate, If Otherwise Entitled, After KGMU Board Certifies Vision Normal

Published: 2 November 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Akanksha Devi, a candidate in the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023 who cleared the earlier tests but was declared medically unfit for squint. An Ophthalmology board of King George's Medical University, Lucknow, formed on the Court's direction, certified her vision as proper/normal. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order/call letter if she is otherwise entitled, without seniority over candidates already appointed (paras 2, 3, 5).

Key holdings

The Court itself ordered an Ophthalmology board at King George's Medical University to examine the alleged squint, as in SLP Civil No. 17704/2025 (para 3).

The board's report persuaded the Court that the appellant had been deprived of her legitimate right to appointment after clearing all the tests (para 5).

The High Court's order refusing relief because the selection had concluded was set aside (paras 2, 5).

The respondents must issue an appointment order/call letter if she is otherwise entitled, but she cannot claim seniority over candidates already appointed (para 5).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Akanksha Devi applied for the post of Constable Civil Police in the 2023 direct recruitment. She cleared document verification and the physical standard test on 28.12.2024 and was called for a medical examination On 22.04.2025 she was orally told that she was unfit due to an alleged squint; a Division Medical Board re-examination 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 rejection order was given to her. Two eye specialists she reportedly consulted at Kanpur found her colour perception and vision normal. Her representation for a fresh examination was rejected, and the High Court dismissed her plea because the selection process had concluded (para 2).

Court's Findings

Noting that it had constituted a medical board in similar circumstances in SLP Civil No. 17704/2025, the Court by its order of 15.09.2026 directed the appellant to appear before King George's Medical University, Lucknow, and the University's Director to form a board of Ophthalmology experts to report on her medical fitness, specifically on the alleged squint (para 3). The four-doctor team's report of 16.10.2026, extracted in para 4, records best-corrected vision of 6/6 in each eye, straight ocular direction and full ocular position in all gazes, and an orthoptic clinic opinion of exophoria to intermittent exotropia with good control (para 4). The Court held that the report persuaded it to accept her plea of having been deprived of her legitimate right to be appointed after successfully clearing all the tests (para 5). In the peculiar facts of the case, and particularly as the University's Ophthalmology board certified her vision as proper/normal, it set aside the High Court's order (para 5). The judgment does not discuss the orthoptic opinion, the Division Medical Board's finding or the High Court's ground that the selection had concluded, and cites no reported decision.

Legal Principle

Where an expert medical board constituted by the Supreme Court certifies a recruitment candidate's vision as proper/normal after the recruiting authority's boards rejected her for squint, the Court may, in the peculiar facts, direct her appointment if she is otherwise entitled, while denying her seniority over candidates already appointed (para 5).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For candidates rejected at the medical stage of a police recruitment, the case shows what can keep a claim alive after the selection closes. The appellant obtained two eye specialists' opinions and sought a fresh examination by a representation of 16.05.2025, within weeks of the re-examination (para 2). The Supreme Court then had her examined by an expert board of its own choosing and acted on its report, although the High Court had refused relief because the selection was over (paras 3, 5). The relief is limited: appointment only if she is otherwise entitled, and no seniority over those already appointed (para 5). The judgment is non-reportable and rests on its peculiar facts (para 5).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.