AKANKSHA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2026 INSC 1184

NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.14041 OF 2026 Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14082 of 2026

AKANKSHA DEVI ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

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 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by NEHA GUPTA by the competent authority for Document Verification (DV) Date: 2026.11.02 17:08:04 IST Reason:

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 1 of 7

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

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 2 of 7

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

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 3 of 7

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).

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 4 of 7

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 Reading 6/6 Reading 6/6 Digital vision charting Near Vision N6 N6 PUPILLARY REACTION +/+ +/+ Digitally within Orbital margin Digitally within normal limits normal limits Digitally within Orbital Tonometry Digitally within normal limits. normal limits Ocular direction Straight Straight Ocular position Full in all gazes Full in all gazes Ocular movement Within normal limits Within normal limits ANTERIOR SEGMENT Within normal limits Within normal limits FUNDUS Within normal limits Within normal limits Axial Length (mm) 22.70 22.71 Anterior Chamber Depth (mm) 3.39 3.35 Lens Thickness (mm) 3.38 3.34 +1.5 D at 90 degree +1.25 D at 70 degree and +1.5 D Retinoscopy and +1.75 OD at 180 at 150 degree degree Fundus photo Within normal limits Within normal limits

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 5 of 7

OCT Macula Within normal limits Within normal limits OCT Disc Within normal limits Within normal limits Visual Field Within normal limits Within normal limits Corneal Topography Within normal limits Within normal limits Within normal limits OCT Cornea Within normal limits OCT RNFL Within normal limits Within normal limits

ORTHOPTIC CLINIC OPINION: Exophoria to Intermittent Exotropia with good control Poor attempt to converge. Deviation is larger in upgaze and for distance fixation. Deviation manifests after patch test. Deviation is larger in upgaze and for distance fixation. Stereopsis is present for distance and near (when deviation is controlled) and alternate suppression (when manifest) Deviation ranges from -5 degree to -8 degrees Signatures and stamps appear on the original report.”

5. 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

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 6 of 7

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.

6. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Pending

application(s), if any, stand consigned to records.

………...........................................J. [ARAVIND KUMAR]

.………...........................................J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 02nd, 2026.

SLP (Civil) No.14082 of 2026 Page 7 of 7