The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to issue an appointment order or call letter to a woman candidate rejected from police constable recruitment on the ground of squint, after a court-directed medical examination supported her challenge.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the High Court’s order declining a fresh medical examination because the selection process had concluded.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
The Court made the appointment conditional on the candidate being otherwise entitled and expressly clarified that she could not claim seniority over candidates already appointed.
Candidate Rejected by Two Medical Boards
The dispute arose from the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. The candidate appeared for document verification and the physical standard test at the Reserves Police Line, Kanpur Dehat, on December 28, 2024.
After successfully clearing those stages, she was included in the list of candidates qualified for the next phase. A call letter dated April 15, 2025, required her to undergo a medical examination on April 22, 2025.
According to the account recorded in the judgment, the examining authority orally informed her that she was medically unfit because of an alleged eye defect described as squint.
She subsequently underwent a re-examination before the Division Medical Board on April 25, 2025, under Rule 15(6)(d) of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, as amended in 2017. That board also declared her medically unfit on the same ground.
However, the judgment records that no rejection order or endorsement was furnished to her.
Independent Medical Opinions Raised Doubts
Following her rejection, the candidate independently approached medical professionals at two institutions in Kanpur.
The judgment refers to examinations by Dr. Parvej Khan, Professor and Dean of the Eye Department at G.S.V.M. Medical College and Associated Hospital, Kanpur, and Dr. Rizwan Ahmad, Consultant Eye Surgeon at UHM District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar.
Their findings concerning her vision and colour perception cast serious doubt on the correctness and fairness of the recruitment medical board’s assessment, as recorded by the Supreme Court.
Relying on these reports, she submitted a representation on May 16, 2025, seeking a fresh medical examination before an independent institution or competent authority, including the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow.
After her representation was rejected, she approached the High Court seeking another medical examination. The High Court dismissed her petition on the ground that the selection process had concluded, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Directed Examination by Experts
The Supreme Court noted that it had constituted a medical board in similar circumstances in SLP (Civil) No. 17704 of 2025.
By an order dated September 15, 2026, it directed a fresh examination by a board comprising ophthalmology experts. The assessment was to specifically address the alleged squint that had resulted in the candidate’s exclusion from employment.
A team of four doctors at King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, examined her on October 8, 2026. The committee’s report, dated October 16, 2026, was subsequently placed before the Court.
What the Fresh Medical Report Found
The report recorded best-corrected distance vision of 6/6 and near vision of N6 in both eyes. It described ocular direction as straight and recorded ocular movement, the anterior segment and the fundus as within normal limits.
Several other investigations, including visual field testing, fundus photography and optical coherence tomography assessments, were also recorded as within normal limits.
However, the report’s orthoptic assessment specifically recorded “Exophoria to Intermittent Exotropia with good control”.
It also noted a poor attempt to converge, deviation manifesting after a patch test, and greater deviation in upward gaze and for distance fixation. Stereopsis was present for distance and near when the deviation was controlled, while alternate suppression was recorded when it was manifest. The deviation ranged from minus five to minus eight degrees.
The report therefore documented an ocular alignment condition alongside normal findings across several measures of visual function. Considering the report as a whole, the Supreme Court described the medical opinion as certifying her vision to be proper or normal.
Justice Aravind Kumar, writing the judgment, held that the fresh medical report persuaded the Court to accept the candidate’s plea that she had been deprived of her legitimate right to appointment after successfully clearing the tests.
The Bench expressly relied on the peculiar facts of the case, particularly the medical opinion obtained through the court-directed examination.
It consequently set aside the High Court’s order and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order or call letter if she was otherwise entitled.
The decision turns on the individual medical evidence and circumstances before the Court; it does not prescribe a general exemption from medical standards applicable to police recruitment.
While granting relief, the Supreme Court protected the seniority position of candidates who had already entered service.
It expressly clarified that the appellant could not claim seniority over candidates appointed up to the date of the judgment.
The appeal was allowed, and pending applications, if any, were consigned to the records.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
