JUDGMENT :

RAHUL BHARTI, J.

WP (C) No. 1757/2021

1. An upfront issue, in its legal connotation, in the case is that though body height of persons is a homogeneous dimension but can an agender homogeneity, equalizing male and female, be prescribed and applied in a selection process with respect to public employment to proclaim that it amounts to equality of height prescription under article 14 of the Constitution of India purporting no discrimination, directly or indirectly, against female candidates.

2. Mount Everest, standing at the height of 29030 ft. with a claim of being the highest point on Earth, succumbed to ascent by 6 ft. tall Sir Edmund Hillary in May, 1953 and 5 ft. tall Junko Ishibashi in May, 1975 making them first man and woman to be at the peak of the Mt. Everest to be followed in their footsteps by many men and women to scale the peak. As the long height was not an advantage for Sir Edmund Hillary, so was the short height not a handicap for Junko Ishibashi to conquer the Everest. However, given to the then Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir and also for the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission, seven (7) female candidates, found short in height by two or three inches but otherwise found meritorious to be in final select list, are not to be reckoned height fit to be Range Officer Grade-I in the J&K Forest (Gazetted) Service. Present case has this scenario presenting before us for adjudication at the call and challenge of said 7 (seven) female candidates.

3. Our judgment holds the key whether the seven (7) female candidates are to ascend peak of their achievement to become Range Officer Grade-I or to descend to the abyss of absurdity of a rule relating to the height requirement which is meaning to play foul against their recommendation for appointment.

4. A relevance serving opening to this judgment is catching the contour of the case at the outset and that is as to whether with respect to an employment/recruitment in/to public service, a prescribed physical standard, in terms of height and chest measurement, can be agender without bearing any distinction between two sexes i.e. male and female and whether on that basis seven (7) female candidates, who competed amongst 567 contestants to come out fully qualified on the basis of written test, interview and walk test so as to figure in final selection list of 28 candidates against 44 posts under selection, can be faltered at the last step to appointment just because their height is found to be short by few inches to the agender prescribed height standard.

5. Thus, the present case engages this court pitted with a call to pick between a status quo of the recruitment rule which means to choke merit backed entitlement of said seven female candidates for recommendation for appointment or the constitutional commitment of policy and polity under the Constitution of India which aims to empower women in all walks of national life by doing away with every conceivable roadblock propping up in the way so as to enable women to excel and stand tall on their merit in the social and public life.

6. Hardware (facts) of this case needs to be set out in chronology before we come to software (legal issue) involved for adjudication in the matter. Hardware component of this case has multiple situations which have converged to give rise to this case. We shall proceed with the chronology of the facts and situations governing and attending the case.

Chronology of t