JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri A.K. Rai, and Smt. Subhah Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels and Sri P.K. Ganguli, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellant and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for petitioners-respondent.

2. All these Special Appeals have been preferred by the State-appellant challenging the orders dated 05.09.2018, 14.11.2019, 01.10.2019, 16.09.2019, 28.11.2019, 16.09.2019, 16.09.2019, 16.09.2019, 16.09.2019, 05.09.2018, 01.10.2019 & 25.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.14195 of 2018 (Bhanu Pratap Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.16840 of 2019 (Deepak Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14514 of 2019 (Sumit Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14079 of 2019 (Bhanu Pratap Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.18772 of 2019 (Sri Shyam Singh Saroj Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14093 of 2019 (Sarvesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14100 of 2019 (Kapil Babu Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14084 of 2019 (Anuj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14005 of 2019 (Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14077 of 2019 (Ashish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14936 of 2018 (Mahesh Chand Vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.14866 of 2019 (Chandra Shekhar Patel Vs. State of U.P. and others) & Writ Petition No.17619 of 2019 (Udit Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others) respectively.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Special Appeal No.725 of 2020 ( State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Department Of Home (Police Section) And 5 Others Vs. Bhanu Pratap Rajput) has been treated as leading Special Appeal and accordingly, orders were passed on earlier occasions.

Facts :

4. The petitioners-respondents appeared in the examination of recruitment to the post of Constable (Male) in Civil Police and Police Armed Constabulary which was held on 29.12.2015 as per provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules 2015”). On page 1 of the impugned judgement dated 05.09.2018, the learned Single Judge briefly noted the controversy that “The Recruitment Board forwarded the list of selected candidates to the Head of Department to proceed further in the matter. “It is at this stage that petitioner has been declared medically unfit for the reason that petitioner's height and chest expansion was found to be inadequate. An appeal, preferred in that regard, was also rejected. Aggrieved by such action, petitioners has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.”

5. The writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge with the following observations/findings:-

“The assessment of physical standard of a candidate by use of standardized equipments, having Bureau of Indian Standards certification or duly certified by the Director of Weights and Measures in terms of clause (4) of Appendix -2, is entitled to greater weight, then an assessment of physical standard by the Medical Board in absence of such standardized equipments. Assessment of physical standard by the Committee constituted underAppendix-2to the Rules of 2015 with aid of standardized equipments, which, otherwise, attains finality under the Rules, therefore, is liable to be preferred over the determination made by the Medical Board in terms of Appendix -3, which had no standardized equipments provided to it for the purposes.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the in escapable conclusion is that the respondents were not justified in declaring the petitioner to be medically unfit on the ground that he does not possess physical standard specified in Appendix-2, even after a declaration by the competent authority in terms of Appendix -2 that petitioner possesses physical standards as prescribed in the Rules. The report of the Medical Board, to the extent it declares t