The court upheld the disqualification of a candidate for failing to meet the minimum height requirement, emphasizing the importance of current assessments over previous measurements.

Order :

1. Petitioner herein, an aspiring candidate for the position of Constable (General Duty), is seeking a direction to command the respondents to re-evaluate his height and consider him for appointment based on the results of his re-assessment pursuant to advertisement dated 24.11.2023 (Annexure 1).

2. Heard.

3. The factual narrative and the controversy involved herein are summarized in an order dated 15.10.2024, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which was earlier seized of the matter, and which reads as follows:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the examination process for appointment on the post of Constable in the respondent department. The petitioner cleared the written examination and was called for physical test. In the physical test, the petitioner has not been found eligible for appointment on the ground that his height is below 170 cm and the expansion of chest is also less than 81 cm.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the same examination, when the petitioner appeared in the year 2022, the responsible authorities of the respondent department has found the height of the petitioner to be 170.1 cm and the chest expansion to be 81.86 cm, therefore, this time, the petitioner has wrongly been disqualified on account of the measurement of height and expansion of chest.

Learned counsel further submits that he has filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the examination done by the respondent authorities for height and expansion of chest. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the same will be appropriately considered and after re- examination of the petitioner, the same will be decided in accordance with law.

In these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents seeks two weeks’ time to complete his instructions.

Time prayed for is allowed.

List on 08.11.2024.”

4. Apropos, it transpires that the petitioner underwent re- examination, and upon assessment by the review medical board, his height was measured at 169.1 cm, which is at a slight fraction more than the earlier measurement of 168.5 cm. However, this still falls short of the minimum required height of 170 cm as required in the advertisement. Therefore, no grounds to interfere are made out.

5. I am also unable to persuade myself with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier recruitment for the same post, when the petitioner underwent height measurement, his height was recorded as 170.1 cm by the same medical board, and therefore, he should be given the benefit of that height measurement. It is possible that the earlier measurement was either recorded erroneously or, for some reason, was incorrectly mentioned in the medical certificate. It is not for this Court, therefore, to accept it as definitive and perpetuate the earlier mistake. As regards the present selection process, the petitioner has undergone height measurement twice; once by the medical board and again by the review medical board, and yet his height did not meet the required criteria.

6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the disputed findings of the review medical board, if so advised, by filing appropriate alternative proceedings in accordance with law.

7. Disposed of accordingly.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.