Rejected twice for squint, cleared by KGMU eye board: Supreme Court opens way for woman to join UP Police
Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the High Court refusal of relief, rely on a King George Medical University ophthalmology report, and direct appointment if she is otherwise entitled.
The Supreme Court on 2 November 2026 directed Uttar Pradesh authorities to issue an appointment order to a woman who cleared every stage of police constable recruitment but was declared medically unfit for a squint. The Court had sent her to a medical board of its own choosing.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed her appeal after that board, at King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, reported her vision as normal. The judgment, written by Justice Kumar, is marked non-reportable.
Cleared every test but one
Akanksha Devi applied for the post of Constable Civil Police under the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. She was called for document verification and the physical standard test at Reserve Police Line, Kanpur Dehat on 28 December 2024.
She passed and was listed as qualified for the next phase. A call letter dated 15 April 2025 then asked her to appear before a Medical Board on 22 April 2025.
Two boards, no written order
At the examination she was told orally that she was unfit because of a defect in the eyes, a squint. A re-examination by a Division Medical Board on 25 April 2025, 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.
She was never given a rejection order or endorsement. She then went independently to two qualified institutions, among them Dr Parvej Khan, Professor and Dean of the Eye Department at G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur.
The other was Dr Rizwan Ahmad, a consultant eye surgeon at the UHM District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. Both found her colour perception and vision normal, which she said cast serious doubt on the board’s assessment.
The High Court closes the door
On 16 May 2025 she submitted a representation seeking a fresh examination before an independent institution, including the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. It was rejected.
She went to the High Court, which dismissed her petition on the ground that the selection process had concluded. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave.
The Court calls in its own doctors
The bench noted that in similar circumstances it had constituted a medical board in SLP (Civil) No. 17704 of 2025. By an order of 15 September 2026 it directed Akanksha Devi to appear before KGMU, Lucknow.
The Director of the university was told to form a board of ophthalmology experts to examine her and report on her medical fitness, with specific reference to the squint. She had been denied employment after receiving a call letter, the Court recorded, because of that alleged defect.
A four-doctor team examined her on 8 October 2026, and counsel for the university placed its report dated 16 October 2026 before the Court.
What the KGMU report found
The report recorded her age as 23. Best corrected vision was 6/6 in each eye, with near vision N6, and the pupillary reaction, fundus, visual field and corneal tests were all within normal limits.
Ocular direction was recorded as straight in both eyes, with full position in all gazes and movements within normal limits.
The orthoptic clinic gave a separate opinion. It noted exophoria to intermittent exotropia with good control, a poor attempt to converge, and a deviation ranging from minus 5 to minus 8 degrees.
It added that the deviation was larger in upgaze and for distance fixation, and that stereopsis was present for distance and near when the deviation was controlled.
Order
The Court said the report persuaded it to accept her plea that she had been deprived of her legitimate right to appointment after clearing all the tests. In the peculiar facts of the case, and particularly because the KGMU Department of Ophthalmology certified her vision as proper, it set aside the High Court order.
The appeal is allowed. The respondents must issue an order of appointment or call letter if she is otherwise entitled.
The Court made it explicit that she shall not claim seniority over candidates already appointed. Pending applications are consigned to records.