Akanksha Devi vs State Of Up

Court
Supreme Court

2026 INSC 1184
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)


VERSUS

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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by by the competent authority for Document Verification (DV)
NEHA GUPTA
Date: 2026.11.02
17:08:04 IST
Reason:
SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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
Reading 6/6 Reading 6/6
Digital vision charting
Near Vision N6 N6
PUPILLARY REACTION +/+ +/+
Digitally within
Orbital margin Digitally within normal limits
normal limits
Digitally within
Orbital Tonometry Digitally within normal limits.
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
+1.5 D at 90 degree
and +1.75 OD at 180
degree
Fundus photo Within normal limits Within normal limits
+1.25 D at 70 degree and +1.5 D
Retinoscopy
at 150 degree
SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 5 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
Within normal limits
OCT Cornea 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 6 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;
nd
NOVEMBER 02 , 2026.

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 7 of 7