The lawyer, in a senior position at the Australian Taxation Office, unsuccessfully applied to join the AFP three times between 2002 and 2012, Federal Court documents revealed.

He alleged that he was turned down during his third attempt in 2012 because of a physical disability, a decision he believed to be discriminatory under the Fair Work Act.

A Federal Court summary of the case described the lengths the man went to in order to join the police.

"Despite his promising legal career, [he] has long desired to serve as a police officer," the summary read.

"He applied to join the AFP in 2002, and then again in 2009, but was unsuccessful each time, albeit for different reasons.

"He also applied to join at least one State or Territory police force."

He was conditionally offered a position with the AFP in 2012 on his third attempt, but alleged this was later withdrawn due to a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis.

Ankylosing spondylitis is a form of arthritis that primarily causes inflammation in the spine but can affect other joints.

"In 2012 [he] submitted a third application. This time he received a conditional offer of employment," a court summary read.

"He failed to secure employment, however, because, following a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis... a decision was made that he did not meet the AFP's medical clearance requirements.

"He tried in vain to have that decision overturned."

In court the man argued that the police should overturn their decision and offer him a position on their officer development program.

"He seeks declaratory relief and orders that the Commissioner appoint him to the position for which he applied, or alternatively admit him to the Federal Police Development Program," read a court summary.

"He also seeks orders restraining the Commissioner from continuing to treat his ankylosing spondylitis as an exclusion under the AFP's medical standards."

The AFP reviewed their decision in 2014 after a complaint was made to the Australian Human Rights Commission, concluding that the condition did in fact pose a risk in the line of duty.

"Unfortunately I am not satisfied that you would be able to safely perform the role of an operational police officer," read a subsequent letter from the then-assistant AFP Commissioner Shane Connelly.

"As a result, I cannot reverse the original decision to refuse medical clearance."

The court determined that the AFP had taken "adverse action" against the man by refusing to employ him on account of his disability, but this decision had been taken because of the "inherent requirements" of the demanding role of being an officer.

It also found the man's request to be re-offered the job was not appropriate.

"If [he] chooses to re-apply for employment with the AFP, no doubt his suitability for employment having regard to the inherent requirements of the position will again arise for consideration," the court concluded.

"This time, however, the consideration will be assisted by the evidence that emerged in this proceeding and should not be affected by misconceptions concerning the nature of ankylosing spondylitis."