AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy):
Heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel representing Mr. G. Ravi Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the record.
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the respondents in the writ petitions assailing the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.31775 of 2025.
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the rejection of the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner for the appointment to the post of Constable in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). The candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner had been rejected on the ground that he did not fulfil the prescribed Physical Standard Test insofar as the requirement of height was concerned.
Upon perusal of the pleadings and the material placed on record, it transpires that the prescribed minimum height for a male candidate belonging to the Unreserved Category is 170 cm, whereas the writ petitioner was found to have a height of 169.7 cm, i.e., short by 0.3 cm. The recruitment guidelines, namely the General Instructions for the Recruitment Board, more particularly Clause 2(d), forming part of the Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination for Recruitment in the CAPFs, NSG and AR, specifically stipulate that while measuring height, a fraction of a centimeter less than 0.5 cm shall be ignored and only a fraction of 0.5 cm or more shall be rounded off to the next higher centimeter.
In the light of the aforesaid guideline, the deficiency of 0.3 cm in the case of the respondent/writ petitioner, being less than 0.5 cm, ought to have been ignored by the authorities while conducting the Physical Standard Test. Consequently, the respondent/writ petitioner could not have been declared ineligible merely on account of such negligible deficiency. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition.
What is also reflected from the impugned order is that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in W.P. Nos.12664 and 12671 of 2025, decided on 01.10.2025, wherein, under similar, if not identical, circumstances, the writ petitions came to be allowed by applying the principle contained in the aforesaid recruitment guidelines relating to the treatment of fractions while measuring height. The said judgment has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.38692-38694 of 2025, wherein the Special Leave Petitions came to be dismissed by order dated 16.01.2026. We are further informed that the review petitions preferred against the said order also came to be dismissed on 29.07.2026, thereby lending finality to the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
In the light of the aforesaid factual backdrop and also taking into consideration the recruitment guidelines framed by the appellants themselves, we do not find the order passed by the learned Single Judge to be either perverse or contrary to the material available on record or the settled principles governing the issue. On the contrary, the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated both the factual matrix and the applicable guidelines while granting the relief to the writ petitioners. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Considering the fact that the appeal stands dismissed today, the appellants herein are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.