Case at a Glance
A candidate in the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable (Civil Police) Direct Recruitment, 2023 cleared document verification and the physical standard test, only to be declared medically unfit twice for a ‘squint’ in her eyes, without any written rejection order. The Allahabad High Court refused a re-examination because the selection was over. The Supreme Court had her examined by an ophthalmology board at King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, which recorded her vision as normal. Relying on that report, the Court set aside the High Court order and directed that she be issued an appointment order if otherwise entitled, without seniority over those already appointed.
The appellant applied for the post of Constable Civil Police under the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. On 28 December 2024 she cleared document verification and the physical standard test at the Reserve Police Line, Kanpur Dehat, and her name was in the qualified list. At the medical examination on 22 April 2025 she was orally declared unfit for a squint, and on 25 April 2025 a Division Medical Board, under Rule 15(6)(d) of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017), again declared her unfit on the same ground. No written rejection order was given.
Two private eye specialists in Kanpur then found her vision and colour perception normal. Her request of 16 May 2025 for a fresh examination by an independent institution or the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, was rejected, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed her petition because the selection process had concluded. In the Supreme Court, by order dated 15 September 2026, she was directed to be examined by an ophthalmology board at King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow. The board examined her on 8 October 2026 and reported on 16 October 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should a candidate who cleared every stage of police recruitment be denied appointment for a squint when an independent medical board appointed by the Supreme Court finds her vision normal?
What the Independent Board Found
The KGMU report, reproduced in the judgment, recorded vision, pupillary reaction, fundus, OCT and visual field findings within normal limits. Its orthoptic opinion noted “Exophoria to Intermittent Exotropia” with a deviation of “-5 degree to -8 degrees”. The Court said the report “would persuade us to accept the plea” of the appellant, relying on the board certifying her vision as proper and normal.
Accordingly, it set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to issue her an appointment order or call letter if she is otherwise entitled. To protect those already selected, it added that the appellant “shall not claim seniority over the candidates who have already been appointed till date.” The judgment does not cite any precedent.
What the Court Actually Held
- The independent ophthalmology board at KGMU, Lucknow found the appellant’s vision normal, which persuaded the Court to accept her plea.
- The Allahabad High Court’s order refusing relief because the selection was over was set aside.
- The State must issue an appointment order or call letter to the appellant, if she is otherwise entitled.
- She will not claim seniority over candidates already appointed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that a medical rejection in public recruitment can be tested through an independent, court-appointed medical board.
- It signals that completion of the selection process is not, by itself, a bar to relief for a wrongly excluded candidate.
- It balances individual relief with the rights of those already appointed by denying retrospective seniority.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- If declared medically unfit, ask for a written order and the board’s findings, and promptly seek re-examination.
- Independent specialist opinions can support a request for review by a neutral institution.
- Relief may come without seniority over those already appointed.
For Counsel
- Seek a court-directed examination by an independent government medical institution where boards’ findings are disputed.
- Highlight the absence of a written rejection order and the candidate’s success in all other stages.
- Anticipate a no-seniority condition when relief is granted after appointments are made.
Key Takeaways
- The candidate was twice declared unfit for a squint, without a written order.
- A KGMU ophthalmology board appointed by the Supreme Court found her vision normal.
- The Supreme Court ordered her appointment if otherwise entitled.
- No seniority over candidates already appointed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a police recruitment candidate challenge a medical unfitness finding?
Yes. In this case the Supreme Court ordered an independent examination by an ophthalmology board at KGMU, Lucknow, and acted on its report finding her vision normal.
Does the selection being over prevent relief?
The High Court refused relief on that ground, but the Supreme Court set aside its order and directed that the candidate be appointed if otherwise entitled.
Will she get seniority from the original batch?
No. The Court said she shall not claim seniority over candidates already appointed.
Conclusion
For a candidate who cleared every other stage, a disputed medical finding nearly ended her chance of joining the police. A neutral medical board, ordered by the Supreme Court, made the difference.
Practical takeaway: Candidates rejected on medical grounds should promptly seek written reasons and an independent re-examination; courts can and do order neutral medical boards, though late relief may come without seniority.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com