The Supreme Court of India has mandated the appointment of a female candidate to the post of Constable Civil Police, effectively reversing her previous rejection based on an alleged eye defect. The bench, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, determined that the candidate, Akanksha Devi, was unfairly excluded from the Uttar Pradesh Police recruitment process after an independent medical evaluation confirmed her visual capacity was within acceptable limits. This directive brings a decisive end to a prolonged selection dispute, providing the applicant with a path to employment while safeguarding the seniority of other successful recruits.

The recruitment process, initiated under the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023, had seen the appellant successfully clear the document verification and physical standard test phases. However, her progress was abruptly halted during the subsequent medical assessment at the Reserves Police Line, Kanpur Dehat, on April 22, 2025. During this stage, officials orally informed her that she was medically unfit for duty due to a perceived squint. This decision was later upheld by a Division Medical Board, acting under Rule 15(6)(d) of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017. Notably, the authorities failed to provide the appellant with a formal, written rejection order or a specific medical endorsement detailing the nature of the condition, a procedural oversight that would later prove significant in her legal challenge.

Seeking to verify the fairness of her rejection, the candidate independently pursued clinical examinations at two reputable medical institutions. Professors and specialists in ophthalmology at the G.S.V.M. Medical College and the UHM District Hospital, Kanpur, conducted thorough assessments of her eye health. These independent reports corroborated her claims that her color perception and visual acuity were normal, directly contradicting the findings of the recruitment medical board. Armed with these findings, she sought a fresh, impartial examination; however, her request was denied. A subsequent appeal to the local High Court failed, with the court declining to intervene on the rationale that the recruitment process had already reached its conclusion.

Upon hearing the matter in the Supreme Court, the bench acknowledged the gravity of the situation, noting that the appellant had been “deprived of her legitimate right for being appointed to the post of Police Constable Civil Police after having successfully cleared all the tests.” Recognizing the persistent conflict between the initial medical assessment and the findings of external specialists, the Court invoked its authority to ensure a definitive, expert-led opinion. By its order dated September 15, 2026, the Court directed the candidate to undergo a rigorous clinical evaluation at King George’s Medical University (KGMU) in Lucknow.

The subsequent report from the KGMU ophthalmology department, dated October 16, 2026, provided a comprehensive analysis of the appellant’s visual health. While the board identified specific orthoptic characteristics—noting “Exophoria to Intermittent Exotropia with good control” and a degree of deviation during specific tests—it simultaneously affirmed that her vision, ocular movement, fundus, and overall anatomy were within normal, healthy parameters. The KGMU report confirmed that the candidate possessed a best-corrected distance vision of 6/6 in both eyes, with near vision levels also meeting standard requirements.

In evaluating the conflicting medical evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the KGMU findings fundamentally undermined the legitimacy of the initial disqualification. Justice Aravind Kumar, speaking for the bench, underscored that the Court’s decision was rooted in the “peculiar facts of the instant case,” particularly the weight of the expert certification regarding her visual capacity. The judges observed that the appellant should not be denied a livelihood based on findings that had been so robustly challenged and subsequently clarified by higher medical expertise.

The Court’s final order mandates that the state authorities immediately issue an appointment order or call letter to the candidate, provided she meets all other non-medical eligibility criteria. The judgment includes a crucial protective clause for existing personnel, explicitly stating that the appellant is not entitled to claim seniority over candidates who have already been appointed. By settling the dispute on these terms, the Court has effectively bridged the gap between strict adherence to recruitment rules and the equitable treatment of job applicants, ensuring that medical standards are applied with accuracy and transparency. The case serves as a poignant reminder of the necessity for clear procedural documentation and the role of independent expert verification in upholding the rights of applicants within the public sector recruitment framework.