Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Constable Candidates Rejected on Flawed Eye Tests
Copy Link
Share
Save
Overturning the state's improper medical disqualification of a qualified recruitment candidate, the Supreme Court ruled that independent medical evaluations by expert institutions can override faulty initial selection board assessments to secure legitimate employment rights.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the civil appeal challenging the rejection of a candidate's selection to the post of Constable Civil Police. The appeal arose out of an order passed by the jurisdictional High Court which had dismissed the candidate's writ petition on the ground that the selection process had already been concluded.
Key Takeaways
Protection of Employment Rights: Candidates wrongfully declared unfit during routine administrative medical tests can secure relief if independent medical boards certify their physical fitness.
Primacy of Expert Opinions: Assessments by specialized institutions like King George’s Medical University hold decisive weight over initial departmental medical boards.
Equitable Relief on Seniority: Candidates appointed pursuant to corrective judicial intervention cannot claim retrospective seniority over those already appointed during the interim.
Evaluation of Medical Assessment and Directions
The Appellant, having successfully cleared the Document Verification and Physical Standard Test under the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023, was declared medically unfit due to an alleged ocular defect (squint eye) by the medical board and the Division Medical Board under Rule 15(6)(d) of the UP Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015. However, subsequent independent examinations by senior ophthalmologists revealed normal vision, casting serious doubt on the initial rejection. To resolve the conflict, the Supreme Court directed an evaluation by a specially constituted medical board at King George’s Medical University, Lucknow. Upon clinical examination, the university's expert board certified the Appellant's vision and ocular parameters as normal.
The Supreme Court highlighted that “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 appeal...”
Ratio
Where a candidate in a public recruitment drive is arbitrarily deprived of employment due to erroneous administrative medical assessments, the findings of an independent expert medical board constituted by the Court establishing physical fitness will prevail, entitling the candidate to an appointment without disturbing the accrued seniority of previously appointed candidates.
Background
The Appellant participated in the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023, clearing the Document Verification and Physical Standard Test held on December 28, 2024. She appeared for her medical examination on April 22, 2025, where she was orally informed of her unfitness due to a squint eye. The Division Medical Board affirmed this unfitness on April 25, 2025, without delivering a formal rejection order.
Thereafter, the Appellant was evaluated at G.S.V.M Medical College and UHM District Hospital, Kanpur, where experts reported normal vision and colour perception. Armed with these findings, she submitted a representation seeking a re-examination, which was turned down. The High Court subsequently dismissed her petition citing the conclusion of the recruitment process.
The Supreme Court, relying on a similar approach adopted in SLP Civil No. 17704/2025, ordered a fresh assessment by King George’s Medical University. The resulting clinical report confirmed normal visual functions, prompting the Apex Court to set aside the High Court's dismissal and direct her appointment.
Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14041 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14082 of 2026)
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1184
Case Title: Akanksha Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 9517
Breaking News
