1. Candidate for police service disqualified during medical examination due to alleged vision defects, despite independent medical reports clearing her, leading to unsuccessful representation and judicial challenge. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1321
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Akanksha Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14041 of 2026 Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14082 of 2026
Decided On : 02-11-2026
Important Points
Where a court-appointed specialist medical board certifies a candidate's fitness, contradicting the recruiting authority's finding of medical unfitness, the candidate is entitled to appointment if otherwise eligible, ensuring their legitimate right to employment is protected.
Subject
Service Law - Public Employment / Recruitment
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH POLICE CONSTABLE AND HEAD CONSTABLES SERVICE RULES: R.15(6)(d)
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Medical Fitness - Recruitment to the post of Police Constable - Candidate declared medically unfit due to squint eye by medical board - No formal rejection order furnished to the candidate - Subsequent examination by a court-constituted specialist medical board certifying vision as normal - Deprivation of legitimate right to appointment after successfully clearing all other tests - Findings of the court-appointed expert medical board to be given primacy over the initial assessment of the recruiting authority. (Paras 2, 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
A candidate for the post of police constable successfully cleared the document verification and physical standard tests but was declared medically unfit by the examining authority and the division medical board on account of a squint eye. No formal rejection order was provided to the candidate. After obtaining independent medical reports and failing to get relief through representation, the candidate approached the High Court, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the selection process had already concluded. In appeal, the court directed a fresh examination by a specialist medical board, which subsequently found the candidate's vision to be normal.
Findings of Court:
Based on the report from the court-constituted medical board certifying the candidate's vision as proper and normal, the court held that the candidate had been deprived of the legitimate right to be appointed to the post after having successfully cleared all required tests.
Issues: Whether a candidate can be granted appointment based on a court-appointed medical board's finding of fitness, despite the initial rejection by the recruiting authority's medical board and the conclusion of the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases where a court-constituted expert medical board contradicts the initial medical board's finding of unfitness and certifies the candidate as fit, the candidate is entitled to be considered for appointment if otherwise eligible, as they cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to employment due to an incorrect medical assessment.
Result: Appeal allowed; respondents directed to issue appointment order/call letter provided the candidate is otherwise entitled, with the clarification that the candidate shall not claim seniority over those already appointed.
Facts of the case:
A candidate for the post of police constable successfully cleared the document verification and physical standard tests but was declared medically unfit by the examining authority and the division medical board on account of a squint eye. No formal rejection order was provided to the candidate. After obtaining independent medical reports and failing to get relief through representation, the candidate approached the High Court, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the selection process had already concluded. In appeal, the court directed a fresh examination by a specialist medical board, which subsequently found the candidate's vision to be normal.
Findings of Court:
Based on the report from the court-constituted medical board certifying the candidate's vision as proper and normal, the court held that the candidate had been deprived of the legitimate right to be appointed to the post after having successfully cleared all required tests.
Issues: Whether a candidate can be granted appointment based on a court-appointed medical board's finding of fitness, despite the initial rejection by the recruiting authority's medical board and the conclusion of the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases where a court-constituted expert medical board contradicts the initial medical board's finding of unfitness and certifies the candidate as fit, the candidate is entitled to be considered for appointment if otherwise eligible, as they cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to employment due to an incorrect medical assessment.
Result: Appeal allowed; respondents directed to issue appointment order/call letter provided the candidate is otherwise entitled, with the clarification that the candidate shall not claim seniority over those already appointed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N. K. Mody, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Singh, Adv. Ms. Debalina Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Ishita M. Puranik, Adv. Mr. Sameer Malik, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma- 3445, AOR Mr. Shantanu Krishna, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchira Goel- 2477, AOR Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N. K. Mody, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Singh, Adv. Ms. Debalina Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Ishita M. Puranik, Adv. Mr. Sameer Malik, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma- 3445, AOR Mr. Shantanu Krishna, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchira Goel- 2477, AOR Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought independent medical re-examination citing conflicting medical reports, while respondents maintained disqualification based on official medical board assessment conducted during the selection process. (Para 2 )
3. Court noted that conflicting medical reports and the applicant's successful performance in prior tests warranted an expert, independent clinical evaluation of the candidate's physical fitness. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. When a candidate's medical disqualification for public employment is disputed by independent expert medical evidence, a court may order an independent medical board examination to ascertain true fitness. (Para 3 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed, original rejection set aside, and appointment directed based on favorable independent medical board report, provided the candidate is otherwise eligible, without seniority claims over others. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Can a court direct a fresh medical assessment if a candidate disputes a government medical board's rejection determination?
Yes, if an applicant is excluded from employment based on medical grounds but presents credible independent expert evidence disputing those findings, the court may direct a fresh evaluation by a neutral, specialized medical board to ensure fairness and correctness in the selection process. (Para 3 , 5 )
JUDGMENT
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 by the competent authority for Document Verification (DV) 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 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 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).
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 Digital vision charting | Reading 6/6 | Reading 6/6 |
| Near Vision | N6 | N6 |
| PUPILLARY | ||
