Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sushant Bhausaheb Sarode and Sahil Sanjay Patil, both aged 21, were aspirants for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination – 2025. They were aggrieved by the Physical Standard Test (PST) Rejection Slip issued by the respondents, which disqualified them from appearing for the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on the ground that their height was less than the prescribed height of 170 cms. The petitioners claimed that their actual height was 170 cms and 170.5 cms respectively, and that the measurement was not done accurately. They filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection. The court heard both petitions together as the issues were similar. The court observed that the rejection slips did not provide any details of the measurement or the procedure followed. The court held that the rejection was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The court directed the respondents to re-measure the height of the petitioners in accordance with the prescribed procedure and to consider them for further selection if they meet the height standards. The court also directed that the petitioners be given an opportunity to be present during the re-measurement. The petitions were allowed with the above directions.
Headnote
A) Recruitment Law - Physical Standard Test - Height Measurement - Rejection Slip - The court examined whether the PST rejection slip disqualifying petitioners for height deficiency was valid. Held that the rejection must be based on accurate measurement and proper procedure, and the petitioners were entitled to a fair opportunity. (Paras 4-6) B) Recruitment Law - Central Armed Police Forces - Constable GD - Prescribed Height Standards - The court noted that the prescribed height for the post is 170 cms, and the petitioners were measured at 169.5 cms and 169 cms respectively. Held that the measurement must be done accurately and any discrepancy must be resolved in favor of the candidate if within permissible limits. (Paras 5-6) C) Recruitment Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference in Recruitment Matters - The court held that writ jurisdiction can be exercised if the rejection is arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights. Held that the rejection slips were not properly reasoned and the petitioners were not given an opportunity to challenge the measurement. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of petitioners from appearing for Detailed Medical Examination (DME) on the ground of height deficiency was valid and in accordance with the prescribed procedure and standards.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the rejection slips, and directed the respondents to re-measure the height of the petitioners in accordance with the prescribed procedure and to consider them for further selection if they meet the height standards. The petitioners were directed to be present for re-measurement.
Law Points
- Physical Standard Test (PST) rejection must be based on accurate measurement
- proper procedure
- and opportunity for candidate to be heard
- height measurement discrepancies can be challenged via writ petition if fundamental rights affected
- recruitment authorities must follow prescribed standards and provide reasoned rejection slips.
