SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 866

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, SHALINDER KAUR, JJ.
NONGTHOMBAM HEROJIT MEITEI – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 15410 of 2024, C.M. APPL. No. 64604 of 2024
Decided On : 18-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar, Sourabh, Ravi Ranjan Mishra
For the Respondents: Jagdish Chandra, Shubham Kumar Mishra, Vasuchit Anand, G.S. Rathore

IMPORTANT POINT
Height requirements for promotions must be consistent and not arbitrary, ensuring equal opportunity for candidates from different regions.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Height requirement for recruitment - Petitioner, a Constable, challenged the height requirement of 165 cm for promotion through LDCE, citing prior recruitment standards for North-Eastern candidates - Court found the height requirement arbitrary and violative of Article 14, allowing the petitioner to participate in the selection process with necessary height relaxation. (Paras 12, 17)

(B) Promotion Standards - The court emphasized that there should not be different standards for regular promotions and LDCE promotions, as both lead to the same post, thus ensuring equality in opportunities. (Paras 12, 16)

JUDGMENT :

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner, who is working as a Constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Orders /Directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the PET/PST.

(b) Pass Writ of Certiorari to quash Irrational, Unjustified and Ultra virus the required height of 165 cm in terms of the advertisement dated 29.12.2022 qua the petitioner.

(c) Pass any other further order/direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Before we begin with the narration of the facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Tholu Rocky v. Director General CISF & Ors. W.P. (C) 9085/2011 and Inspector TD Cyril Mimin Zou v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) 11133/2024, wherein as per the guidelines set out by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), the requisite relaxation in height had been granted to the petitioner.

3. However, to gain a holistic understanding of the dispute, we must provide a factual background. The petitioner applied to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector [Executive] (ASI) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent no. 2 on 29.12.2022, through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (in short ‘LDCE’). Through this exam, 706 vacancies in the CISF for the recruitment year of 2022 were to be filled and only eligible candidates who had completed five years of regular service in their respective posts were allowed to appear for the LDCE.

4. The petitioner appeared for the LDCE on 09.04.2024 and scored a total of 139 marks, thereby qualifying the written examination. He was, thereafter, required to appear for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and the Physical Standard Test (PST) which were to be conducted at CISF 5th RB, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad from 26.06.2024 to 03.07.2024. However, on reaching the said destination, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the PET and PST due to his height not being 165cms as required by the advertisement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation to the appellate authority on 26.06.2024, stating therein that he was recruited in the CISF as a Constable (General Duty) in 2013 with a height of 163 cms, which was as per the eligibility criteria of recruitment.

5. In pursuance of the aforementioned representation of the petitioner, the competent authority of the Recruitment Board, after considering the petitioner’s request, called the petitioner to CISF 5th RB, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad for a re-measurement of his height on 03.07.2024. However, in spite of explaining the shortfall in his height in the representation, he was issued a rejection slip, stating that his height was less than the required height of 165 cms.

6. In this background, the petitioner submitted another representation to the respondent no. 2 on 06.07.2024, praying therein that he be allowed to participate in the further round of the recruitment process. The said representation came to be rejected, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating his stance taken in the petition, submitted that this writ petition be allowed in view of the decisions of this Court in Tholu Rocky (supra) and Inspector TD Cyril (supra). He submitted that the petitioner belongs to the North-Eastern state of Manipur and people hailing from the said State are genetically shorter than the average person from other parts of the country. Keeping this in mind, the SSC while issuing the advertisement for recruitment to various CAPFs, including the CISF, has kept the required height for recruitment of males from the North-Eastern States as 162.5 cms.

8. He submitted that once the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top