Height measurement discrepancies in recruitment processes necessitate re-evaluation to ensure fair opportunities.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

4 03-12-2025 The petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Constable, CRPF. So far as male candidates are concerned, a candidate must possess a minimum height of 170 cm. So far as the height of the candidate is concerned, the petitioner was measured twice, and his height was recorded as 170 cm in one place and 170.3 cm in another place. In the Government Hospital, the measurement of the petitioner came to 171 cm as per Annexure 6. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his height was measured at 169.4 cm.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of his candidature on the ground that of his height by filing the instant writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India, stating, inter alia, that if any candidate is aggrieved with regard to physical ability examination including his height there is a provision of departmental appeal.

4. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner did not take recourse of the appellate provision.

5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner draws my attention to Annexure P/6, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner wanted to lodge a complain against the PET/PST Board held on 10^th of September, 2025 before the I.G., CRPF but the concerned authority did not accept the said complaint.

6. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that petitioner’s height ought to be measured once again by the PET/PST Board before the examination scheduled to be held on 4^th of December, 2025. On the basis of the measurement taken by the Board, the respondent authority shall take the final decision as to whether the petitioner would be permitted to appear in further examination or not.

7. This order is passed because of the fact that the selection test has already been started and it will continue till tomorrow i.e., 4^th of December, 2025.

8. This order cannot be treated as a precedent in similar type of cases or similar types of incidence by any of the candidates.

9. With the above direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)