O R D E R

The petitioner is a Grade-II Police Constable, having been recruited in the year 2011. In the recruitment process called for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred as the 'Board'), the petitioner has applied under the open category for the year 2019, though there was an option for him to choose under Departmental Quota. In the earlier selection for Police Constable-Grade II held in the year 2011, the petitioner's height was measured at 171 cms and accordingly, he was recruited as Police Constable-Grade II. In the present recruitment process of 2019, his height measurement was recorded at 169.5 cms and consequently, his candidature was rejected vide the impugned disqualification slip dated 30.09.2020. Challenging the rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's actual height is 171 cms and that the Board had wrongly measured his height at 169.5 cms instead of 171 cms. In view of this discrepancy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the physical test itself is unreliable and therefore, sought for a fresh physical measurement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Full Bench decision of this Court in A.Parthiban and others vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board and others in W.A.Nos.8 to 12, 14 to 16, 23 and 24 of 2020 etc., and submitted that the parameters held by the Full Bench was to relax an extent of 0.5 cm in the height measurement test by 'rounding-off', which has not been followed during the recruitment process. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the medical certificate issued by a Government Doctor, dated 01.10.2020, that certifies his height as 171 cms.

4. Today, I had an occasion to deal with the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner in an identical case in G.Vinoth vs., the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board passed in W.P. (MD) No.14177 of 2020, wherein such submissions were overruled in the following manner:-

“ 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Hon'ble Full Bench in A.Parthiban's case(cited supra) had addressed the principle of 'rounding-off' adopted by the respondents in the physical height measurement test and had suggested for amendment of the Tamil Nadu Police Special Rules, to enable 'rounding-off' the measurement by 0.5 cm, to eliminate discrepancies. There were no positive directions by the Hon'ble Full Bench for 'rounding-off' the height measurement by 0.5 cms for the present recruitment process in the present 2019 notification. As such, I am unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.

7. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the Hon'ble Full Bench judgment in A.Parthiban's case (cited supra) is extracted hereunder:

“41. Coming to the third question of the principle of rounding off adopted by the respondents, even though the amendments are in force since 2015 and are not under challenge before us, we otherwise do not find any such error in the implementation thereof keeping in view Clause 6(2) of the norms contained in the Compendium of Instructions extracted herein above. However, the same can be reconsidered in order to avoid any miscalculation or computation risks by making a provision of a minimum relaxation in the height requirement inclusive in the rule itself, and as an illustration we can only suggest that if the minimum height for a male candidate of general category is 170 cms, then relaxation of 0.5 cm may be prescribed in the rule itself without giving any further relaxation in any manner whatsoever either by rounding off or otherwise. This would, in our opinion, eliminate any scope for further doubts or suspects of either a mis-calculation or deliberate calculation The Courts therefore would be reduced from the burden of unnecessa