The court upheld the finality of height measurement and related recruitment procedures governed by regulations, dismissing claims for re-evaluation due to marginal discrepancies.

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.08.2025, vide Annexures F and G, passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, whereby the height of the petitioner has been measured as 169.4 cms and 169.3 cms, whereas the qualifying height prescribed for male candidates is 170 cms. Hence, his case was not considered for appointment as Constable.

2. The respondent–Central Government issued a notification dated 05.09.2024, vide Annexure-A, inviting applications for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner applied for the said post. As per the notification, the selection process consists of three stages: (i) Computer- Based Examination, (ii) Physical Standard Test (PST) / Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and (iii) Medical Examination /Document Verification.

3. The petitioner successfully cleared the Computer-Based Examination and was consequently permitted to participate in the Physical Standard Test. As per the notification, the minimum height prescribed for male candidates is 170 cms. The respondents measured the height of the petitioner using a Radio Frequency Identification Device, which is a digital equipment for height measurement. As per Annexure-F, the petitioner’s height was measured as 169.4 cms. On the same day, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. As per Annexure-G, upon re-measurement by the appellate authority, the petitioner’s height was recorded as 169.3 cms.

4. Since the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the Physical Standard Test, his candidature was not considered further. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent medical examination at certain private hospitals, wherein his height was measured as 171 cms, as evidenced by Annexure-J. Another certificate, produced as Annexure-J1, shows that upon examination at Kanniyakumari Medical College, the petitioner’s height was again measured as 171 cms. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging Annexures F and G issued by the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, in the previous year, pursuant to a notification issued by the respondents for the post of Constable (GD), the petitioner had applied and, during the Physical Standard Test conducted therein, his height was measured as 170 cms. In support of this contention, Annexure-H has been produced.

(ii) Secondly, while conducting the Physical Standard Test, the respondents first subjected the petitioner to the running race, and thereafter measured his height.Therefore, there is a reduction in height.

(iii) Thirdly, it is contended that a person’s height varies at different times of the day. The petitioner’s height, as measured by the respondents, falls short by only 0.6 cms. Owing to this scientific reason, the petitioner ought to have been permitted another opportunity for measurement, or alternatively, such a marginal difference ought to have been rounded off to 170 cms. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P.Nos.13657 and 14840 of 2024 and connected matters, disposed of on 11.06.2024.The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

“3.5. In continuation of the said arguments, when the matter was further heard today, Mrs.Gayathri Vasudevan, produced the relevant materials. She would firstly rely upon an article published in the International Journal of Anatomy and Research, titled as “Diurnal variation of height in South Indian Adolescent Subjects” to contend that the height of any indivi