A woman who was turned down for the UP constable post over squint eye, and who says she was never given anything in writing, has won her appeal: the Supreme Court has directed her appointment after a medical board of King George’s Medical University, Lucknow certified her vision as proper and normal.
New Delhi: It took a report from an expert board at King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow to settle the matter: the Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order and directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to issue an appointment order to a candidate for Constable Civil Police who was declared medically unfit on account of an alleged squint eye, despite having cleared every other stage of selection [Akanksha Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.].
Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi formed the bench that allowed the appeal in a judgment dated November 2, 2026, authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.
What the Court held
The bench said the report persuaded it to accept that the appellant had been deprived of her legitimate right to appointment after clearing 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 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.”
The KGMU report
On September 15, 2026, the Supreme Court directed the appellant to appear before KGMU and asked its Director to constitute a board of ophthalmology experts to report on her fitness, specifically with reference to the alleged squint. It noted that it had followed the same course in an earlier matter (SLP (Civil) No. 17704 of 2025).
Four doctors examined her on October 8, 2026, and their report dated October 16, 2026 was placed on record. It recorded best corrected vision of 6/6 in both eyes, straight ocular direction, full ocular movement in all gazes, and normal findings across the anterior segment, fundus, visual field and retinal scans. The orthoptic clinic noted exophoria to intermittent exotropia “with good control”, with stereopsis present for distance and near when the deviation is controlled.
How she reached the Supreme Court
Akanksha Devi, the appellant, had applied under the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. At the Reserve Police Line, Kanpur Dehat, on December 28, 2024, she went through document verification and the physical standard test, cleared both, and was placed in the list of qualified candidates for the next phase.
Before the Medical Board on April 22, 2025, she was, according to her, told orally that she was unfit because of a squint eye. A re-examination by the Division Medical Board on April 25, 2025, under Rule 15(6)(d) of the UP Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017, again declared her unfit on the same ground. She was given no written rejection order or endorsement.
On her own, she then consulted two eye specialists: Dr. Parvej Khan, Professor and Dean of the Eye Department at G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, and Dr. Rizwan Ahmad, Consultant Eye Surgeon at UHM District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. Both found her vision and colour perception normal. Her representation of May 16, 2025, seeking a fresh examination by an independent body, was rejected, and the High Court dismissed her writ petition on the ground that the selection process had concluded.
The directions
The appeal, arising from SLP (Civil) No. 14082 of 2026, was allowed. The appellant is to receive an appointment order or call letter if she is otherwise entitled, but she will not claim seniority over candidates already appointed. The judgment is marked non-reportable and records that it turns on the peculiar facts of the case.
Why the judgment matters
A single finding of unfitness at a medical test can end a police aspirant’s chances after months of preparation, which is why such tests carry great weight. Here, the candidate was told orally that she was unfit, never received a written order, and was refused an independent re-examination even after two specialists found her vision normal. The High Court then turned her away because the selection was over. By ordering an expert board at a premier medical university, the Supreme Court gave her the fair assessment she had sought from the start.
The ruling also shows the practical balance courts strike in recruitment cases. A selection process that has ended is not, by itself, an answer where a candidate was excluded on a doubtful medical finding. At the same time, the Court protected candidates already appointed by denying the appellant seniority over them, so that correcting one wrong does not unsettle others.
Case Title: Akanksha Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14041 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14082 of 2026); 2026 INSC 1184
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate N.K. Mody with AOR Alpana Sharma and others for the appellant; AOR Ruchira Goel for the respondents