The Supreme Court has held that an expert medical opinion from a premier institution can override a departmental medical board's adverse finding in police constable recruitment, directing appointment of a candidate rejected for alleged squint eye after King George's Medical University certified her vision as normal. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary hierarchy in medical fitness disputes and mandates speaking orders from recruitment boards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Akanksha Devi, participated in the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023 for the post of Constable Civil Police. She successfully cleared the Document Verification (DV) and Physical Standard Test (PST) conducted on 28 December 2024 at Reserves Police Line, Kanpur Dehat, and her name appeared in the qualified list for the next phase (Annexure-P4). She was subsequently issued a call letter for medical examination scheduled for 22 April 2025 (Annexure-P5).
Key Facts
- The appellant appeared before the medical board on 22 April 2025 and was orally informed that she was unfit due to an alleged defect in the eyes (squint eye).
- A re-examination was conducted by the Division Medical Board on 25 April 2025 under Rule 15(6)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017), which again declared her medically unfit on account of squint.
- No written rejection order or endorsement was furnished to the appellant.
- The appellant independently obtained medical opinions from two qualified institutions: 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. Both reports found her colour perception, variation, and vision to be normal, casting serious doubt on the departmental board's assessment.
- Based on these reports, the appellant submitted a representation on 16 May 2025 seeking a fresh medical examination before an independent institution or competent authority, including the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. The representation was rejected.
- The appellant then approached the jurisdictional High Court for a direction to re-conduct the medical examination. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the selection process had been concluded.
Procedural History
- 28 December 2024: Document Verification and Physical Standard Test conducted; appellant qualified.
- 15 April 2025: Call letter for medical examination issued (Annexure-P5).
- 22 April 2025: Medical examination conducted; appellant orally informed of unfitness due to squint eye.
- 25 April 2025: Re-examination by Division Medical Board under Rule 15(6)(d); again declared unfit.
- 16 May 2025: Appellant's representation for fresh medical examination submitted and rejected.
- Date not specified: Writ petition filed before the High Court; dismissed on ground of concluded selection process.
- 15 September 2026: Supreme Court, noting a similar case (SLP Civil No. 17704/2025), directed the appellant to appear before King George's Medical University, Lucknow, for examination by a board of ophthalmology experts.
- 8 October 2026: Appellant clinically examined by a team of four doctors at KGMU.
- 16 October 2026: KGMU medical report submitted, certifying vision 6/6 in both eyes, normal ocular parameters, and orthoptic opinion of exophoria to intermittent exotropia with good control (deviation -5 to -8 degrees).
- 2 November 2026: Supreme Court pronounced judgment allowing the appeal.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought a direction to set aside the medical rejection, a fresh medical examination by an independent authority, and appointment to the post of Constable Civil Police if found medically fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a departmental medical board's adverse finding on medical fitness in a police constable recruitment can be overturned based on independent expert medical opinions from premier institutions, particularly when the departmental board failed to provide a speaking order and the selection process had been declared concluded by the High Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the departmental medical board's rejection was arbitrary and unsupported by reasoned findings, as no written order was furnished. She relied on independent medical opinions from G.S.V.M. Medical College and UHM District Hospital, both of which certified her vision as normal. She argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground that the selection process had concluded, without examining the merits of the medical dispute. The appellant also invoked the precedent of SLP Civil No. 17704/2025, where this Court had constituted an independent medical board for a similar challenge.
For the Respondent
The State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents maintained that the medical board's decision under Rule 15(6)(d) was final and binding, and that the selection process having been completed, no further direction for appointment could be issued. They argued that the departmental medical board, constituted under the service rules, was the competent authority to assess medical fitness, and its finding of squint eye rendered the appellant ineligible. The respondents further contended that the appellant's independent medical opinions could not override the statutory board's determination.
The Court's Analysis
The Court noted the peculiar facts of the case, particularly the absence of a written rejection order from the departmental medical board and the existence of two independent medical opinions contradicting the board's finding. The Court observed that in a similar matter (SLP Civil No. 17704/2025), it had directed an independent medical examination at a premier institution. Following that precedent, the Court constituted a medical board at King George's Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, comprising experts in ophthalmology, to evaluate the appellant's medical fitness with specific reference to the alleged squint eye.
"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: ... VISION (BEST CORRECTED) on Digital vision charting Reading 6/6 Reading 6/6 ... ORTHOPTIC CLINIC OPINION: Exophoria to Intermittent Exotropia with good control ... Deviation ranges from -5 degree to -8 degrees ... Stereopsis is present for distance and near (when deviation is controlled) and alternate suppression (when manifest)"
The KGMU report certified the appellant's best corrected vision as 6/6 in both eyes, with all ocular parameters - pupillary reaction, orbital margin, tonometry, ocular direction, position, movement, anterior segment, fundus, axial length, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, retinoscopy, fundus photo, OCT macula, OCT disc, visual field, corneal topography, OCT cornea, OCT RNFL - within normal limits. The orthoptic clinic opinion noted exophoria to intermittent exotropia with good control, deviation larger in upgaze and distance fixation, manifesting after patch test, with stereopsis present when deviation controlled.
The Court held that the KGMU report, emanating from a premier medical institution, carried greater evidentiary weight than the departmental board's unsubstantiated oral finding. The Court emphasized that the appellant had been deprived of her legitimate right to appointment after successfully clearing all preceding stages of selection. The Court set aside the impugned High Court order, allowed the appeal, and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order or call letter if the appellant was otherwise entitled, with the explicit condition that she would not claim seniority over candidates already appointed.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the writ petition, allowed the appeal, and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order or call letter for the post of Constable Civil Police under the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023, if the appellant is otherwise eligible. The Court made it explicitly clear that the appellant shall not claim seniority over candidates who have already been appointed till date. The direction was based on the King George's Medical University medical report dated 16 October 2026 (examination conducted on 8 October 2026), which certified best corrected vision of 6/6 in both eyes, all ocular parameters within normal limits, and an orthoptic opinion of exophoria to intermittent exotropia with good control (deviation -5 to -8 degrees). No costs were awarded. Pending applications, if any, were consigned to records.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Expert Medical Opinion Prevails Over Departmental Board
Practitioners representing candidates in recruitment medical fitness disputes should immediately secure independent expert opinions from premier government medical institutions when departmental boards issue adverse findings without reasoned orders. The Supreme Court's reliance on the KGMU report over the Division Medical Board's finding establishes a clear evidentiary hierarchy: a detailed, specialist opinion from a tertiary care institution outweighs a departmental board's unsubstantiated conclusion, especially when the latter fails to provide a speaking order.
Speaking Orders Are Mandatory in Medical Rejections
- Recruitment authorities must issue detailed, written rejection orders with specific medical findings when declaring a candidate medically unfit.
- Oral communications of unfitness, without a formal endorsement, are vulnerable to judicial challenge.
- The absence of a speaking order in this case was a critical factor in the Court's decision to order an independent re-examination.
Selection Process Conclusion Does Not Bar Judicial Review
The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the selection process had concluded was overturned. The Supreme Court affirmed that a candidate's right to a fair medical assessment survives the formal conclusion of the selection process, particularly where the medical rejection is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. Practitioners should argue that the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) applies when a candidate is deprived of a legitimate claim due to procedural irregularities in the medical examination.
No Seniority for Belated Appointment
The Court's explicit direction that the appellant shall not claim seniority over already appointed candidates balances the candidate's right to appointment with administrative finality. This principle will likely apply in similar cases where judicial intervention results in appointment after the selection process has formally ended. Lawyers should advise clients that while appointment may be secured, seniority and consequential benefits (pay fixation, promotion eligibility) will typically be protected only from the date of actual joining.
