Form No. J(2)

HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction W.P.A. NO 129 OF 2026 PALLABI ROY VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA For the Petitioner :Mr. Subham Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Supritam Nag, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Roy, Adv.

For the State :Mr. Momenur Rahman, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 17.02.2026 Judgment on : 17.02.2026 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:

1. Petitioner participated in the selection process for being appointed in the post of Constable in West Bengal Police.

2. Petitioner was short-listed after written examination but in Physical Measurement Test (for short, “PMT”) petitioner was declared unfit as height of the petitioner was measured 151.30 cm which is below the prescribed height i.e. 152 cm. Petitioner participated in PMT on 8th January, 2026 and preferred appeal questioning height measured in PMT and Appellate Authority took measurement of height of the petitioner as 151.70 cm.

3. Learned advocate representing the petitioner relies upon PMT report dated 20^th December, 2023 in connection with previous selection process i.e. recruitment process for the post of Constable in West Bengal Police - 2023. Said report is at page 36 of the writ petition which discloses that height of the petitioner in aforesaid selection process was measured as 152.00 cm and petitioner was found to be eligible in PMT. It is submitted that considering height of the petitioner measured in earlier selection process of 2023 petitioner may be declared eligible in ongoing selection process i.e. recruitment process for the post of Constable in West Bengal Police -2024 ignoring height taken by the concerned authority in PMT and appeal.

4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court dated 12^th March, 2024 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 108/2024, Sapna Vs. State of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary & Others

5. Writ petition is opposed by the learned advocate representing State respondents and it is submitted that as per norms prescribed height is 152 cm whereas in appeal height of the petitioner was measured 151.70 cm which is less than prescribed height. It is also submitted that by using digital Stadiometer (Electronic Height-Weight measuring device) height of the candidate was measured in PMT in order to accurately determine whether candidate’s height is below the prescribed limit or not.

6. It is found from the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of measurements of height in PMT and appeal relating to selection processes of 2024 that height of the petitioner was finally measured as 151.70 cm which is less than prescribed height of 152 cm by

0.30 cm.

7. Height of the petitioner taken on previous selection process ought not to be relied upon as the issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in an intra-court appeal being FMA 964 of 2025 (Harun Miah Vs. Union of India & Ors.). Hon’ble Division Bench in said appeal while considering candidature of the appellant for the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles based on height measured in ongoing selection process as petitioner was found to be ineligible in terms of height it was succinctly decided that height measured in current selection process is important and relevant and not height which was measured in previous selection process and in this regard submission of the respondent authorities was taken note of.

8. In view of decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Harun Miah (supra) judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner delivered by the coordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Sapna (supra) does not come in aid of the petitioner.

9. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

10. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual un