Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for the position of Constable Civil Police under the U.P. Police Constable Civil Direct Recruitment, 2023. The appellant, Akanksha Devi, successfully cleared the Document Verification and Physical Standard Test but was declared medically unfit due to alleged squint eyes during a medical examination on 22.04.2025. Following her rejection, she sought a re-examination from independent medical institutions, which found her vision normal. Her representation for a fresh medical examination was rejected, prompting her to approach the jurisdictional High Court, which dismissed her plea on the grounds that the selection process had concluded. The Supreme Court noted that in similar circumstances, it had previously constituted a medical board for another appellant and directed the appellant to appear before King George’s Medical University for a fresh evaluation. The medical report from the university confirmed her vision as normal, leading the court to conclude that she had been deprived of her legitimate right to employment. The court allowed her appeal, directing the respondents to issue her appointment order while ensuring she would not claim seniority over those already appointed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Recruitment Process - Medical Fitness Assessment - U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 - The appellant was declared medically unfit due to squint eyes, but subsequent independent medical evaluations indicated normal vision, raising doubts about the initial assessment. The court directed a fresh medical examination and ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing her appointment if otherwise eligible, while clarifying that she would not claim seniority over already appointed candidates (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was unjustly declared medically unfit for the position of Constable Civil Police based on the initial medical assessment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the appellant if otherwise entitled, clarifying that she would not claim seniority over already appointed candidates.
Law Points
- Recruitment process
- Medical examination
- Right to employment
- Administrative law
- Judicial review
