WA/936/2026 of Union of India Vs Putti Chaitanya on 7 September 2026

JUDGMENT:

tp.' th! lt.n iit t t .J).ltke P Sa,l Kosh.r) Betn een: ljnion ol Lrdia an.l others Putti C'haitanr a

3. Ily the irrprrencd or.det petiliol) and set asrde fhc Appellants AND Respondent the iearned Single Judge allorved the rvrit IJeard NIr. N. Ilhtrianga Rao. learned counscl fbr the appellants ancl NIr. Tarun Ratr.t Aitltlun. Iearned counsel represenling Mr' C Ravi Chanclrasekhar. lcarnetl counsel appcaring lbr respondsnt Perused the record.

2. 'lhe present Writ Appeal has been prel'erred by the respondents in the urit petition-s assailing the order dated 05 02.2026 passed by the Iear-ned Single .lurige in \\ .P. No.l1775 o12025. rc,jcction ol' the candidature ol. the respondent/writ petitioner lor 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 fulfill the prescribed Physical Standard Test insofar as the requirement of height was concerned.

4. Upon perusal of the pleadings and the material placed on record, it transpires that the prescribed rninimum height for a male candidate belonging to the Unreserved Category is 170 crl, whereas the writ petitioner was found to have a height of 169.5 cm, i.e., short by 0.5 cm. The recruitment guidelines, narnely the General Instructions for the Recruitment Board, more particularly. CIause 2(d), forming part of the Unifbrm Guidelines for Medical Examination for Recruitment in the CAPFs, NSG and AR, specifically stipulate that while measuring height, a fraction of a centirneter less than 0.5 cm shalt be ignored and only a fraction of 0.5 cm or rrore shall be rounded off to the next higher centimeter.

5. In the light of the aforesaid guideline, the deficiency of 0.5 cIrr 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 rnerely on account of such negligible dellciencr. lr is in the aiilresaid tactual backdrop that thc learned Single Judge procecded to allow the \\rit petition

6. \\'hatisalsorellectedliolntheirrpugnedorderisthatthelearned Single Judge. rvhilc allorr'ing the writ petition. placed reliance upon the judgrrent rendercd bv the Division Bench of the Bornbal' High Court in \\'.P Nos.l2664 antl 12671 ol 2025. decided on 01 10 2025' "vherein' uDder sir.nilar. i1'not irlentical. circurnstances. the $rit petitions came to be allolrecl b1' applling the principle contained in the aforesaid recruitment guirlelines rclating to the treatment oi' tiactions \\'hile rneasuring ht'ighr. The said judgment has since been affinned by the Hon'ble Suprerne Cotrrt in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos'3 8692- 3869-1 of l()25. sherein the Special l,eave Petitions came to be dismissed b) order datetl t6,01,2026' We are lufiher inforrled that the revieu' petilions prel'erred againsr the said order also came to be disr.r.rissed on 19.()72026. therebl lending finalitl to the vieu taken by thc [)ir ision []e nch o1'the Bornhal' Iligh Court'

7. In the light of the irlbresaid tactual backdrop and also taking into consideratiott thc recrttitment guidelines liamed b1' the appellants thernselr,es. $c dLr not tlnd the order passed by the learned Single Judge to bc either pcrvcrse or contrar-\' to the lnaterial available on record or rhc sdllcd pr.ine ipl..s eor ernins thd issuc. On the contrary'. the leafngd Single .ludge has righlh appreciared both the factual rnatrix and the

To, applicable guidelines while granting the relief to the writ petitioners. The appeal, being devoid of rrerit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

8. Considering the fact that the appeal stands disrnissed today, the appellants herein are directed to comply with the order passed by the Iearned Single Judge as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of lour (4) rveeks fiorn the date of receipt ol a copy ol this judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] One CC to SRI G. RAVI CHANDRASEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies BN TKS

!) ,--) ,re

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 071091202G

JUDGMENT

WA.No.936 of 202G DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS t c.9,,-' -i,i' I t)ctt t- 1HE S14 | R € o ( ,t)c O r 5 srP 2026 za \.