01Facts
Akanksha Devi applied for the post of Constable, Civil Police, in the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023.
After clearing document verification and the physical standard test, she was declared medically unfit for alleged squint following an examination and re-examination by a Division Medical Board under Rule 15(6)(d) of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017.
p. 2She was not given a written rejection order.
Two independent eye specialists reported normal vision and colour perception, but her request for a further examination was rejected.
The High Court dismissed her challenge on the ground that the selection process had concluded.
During the appeal, the Supreme Court directed an expert board at King George’s Medical University (KGMU) to examine her; its report recorded 6/6 vision in both eyes and an orthoptic finding of exophoria to intermittent exotropia with good control.
pp. 2–602Issues
i.1. Whether the appellant’s rejection as medically unfit for alleged squint was sustainable in light of the subsequent examination by KGMU’s expert medical board.
pp. 2–6ii.2. Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment-related relief notwithstanding the conclusion of the selection process.
pp. 4, 6–703Law Applied
Rule 15(6)(d) of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017, provided for re-examination by a Division Medical Board after an adverse medical assessment.
p. 2The Court also referred to its earlier order in SLP (C) No. 17704 of 2025, under which it had directed constitution of a medical board in a similar matter.
p. 4The judgment does not formulate a broader legal test; it resolves the appeal on the particular medical evidence and circumstances before it.
04Reasoning
The Court considered that the appellant had cleared the earlier stages of selection, had been rejected on the basis of alleged squint, and had not received a written rejection order.
pp. 2–6It then relied on the KGMU board’s specialist examination, which recorded 6/6 vision in both eyes and certified her vision as proper or normal, while documenting the orthoptic findings.
pp. 2–6In those specific circumstances, the Court accepted that the appellant had been deprived of a legitimate opportunity for appointment and found it appropriate to set aside the High Court’s order.
p. 605Holding
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order or call letter if the appellant was otherwise entitled to appointment.
pp. 6–7It expressly directed that she would not claim seniority over candidates already appointed.
pp. 6–7Original Court PDF
Akanksha DevivsState Of Up
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
