On November 02, 2026, a landmark decision was delivered regarding arbitrary medical disqualifications in public employment. The case Civil Appeal No. 14041 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14082 of 2026, involved appellant Akanksha Devi and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around the appellant being denied a position as a Constable Civil Police due to an alleged ocular defect. This ruling is highly significant for candidates facing erroneous medical assessments during competitive selection processes.
The background of the dispute traces back to the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment of 2023. The appellant successfully navigated the initial hurdles of the selection process. She was issued a call letter for Document Verification and the Physical Standard Test in December 2024. After successfully clearing these mandatory assessments, her name was officially included in the list of qualified candidates for the subsequent phase. Consequently, she was invited to appear before a Medical Board in April 2025. During this medical examination, the examining authority orally informed the appellant that she was medically unfit due to a squint eye. A subsequent re-examination by a Division Medical Board also declared her unfit. However, the authorities failed to provide the appellant with any formal written rejection order or official endorsement regarding her exact medical status.
Faced with this opaque administrative action, the appellant sought independent medical evaluations. She visited qualified medical institutions, including the Eye Department at G.S.V.M Medical College and the UHM District Hospital in Kanpur. Experts at both institutions concluded that her colour perception, vision, and ocular alignment were entirely normal. Armed with these independent reports, she submitted a representation seeking a fresh examination by a neutral authority. When the state authorities rejected her representation, she approached the High Court. The High Court dismissed her petition, reasoning that the recruitment process had already concluded and could not be reopened.
Seeking justice, the appellant approached the highest judicial forum. Recognizing the gravity of the situation and the conflicting medical evidence, a directive was issued for the appellant to undergo an independent clinical evaluation. The authorities at King George’s Medical University in Lucknow were instructed to constitute a specialized medical board comprising experts in Ophthalmology to ascertain the true medical fitness of the candidate.
The independent medical board conducted a thorough clinical examination and submitted its report in October 2026. The medical experts found that the appellant possessed a best corrected vision of 6/6 in both eyes. The report confirmed that her ocular direction was straight, and her ocular movements were entirely within normal limits. The board noted a minor condition with good control that did not impair her visual fitness for the required duties.
Relying on this conclusive and independent medical evidence, the Court passed the order setting aside the earlier dismissal by the High Court. The appeal was allowed, and the state authorities were directed to issue an appointment order or call letter to the appellant, provided she met all other eligibility criteria. To balance the equities and avoid administrative chaos, it was explicitly clarified that the appellant would not be entitled to claim seniority over candidates who had already been appointed during the earlier phases of the recruitment drive. This judgment reinforces the principle that state recruitment boards must operate with absolute transparency. Denying a candidate their legitimate right to employment based on unwritten or flawed medical evaluations is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
Read the Judgment here.