Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010034482026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1061/2026 MISS RUSHIKA PATHAK D/O SRI INDRA PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO. 1 BORDIKORAI, PO RANGACHAKUA,PS JAMUGURIHAT, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM 781482 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ANDORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI INDIA, 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF RECRUITMENT BRANCH EAST BLOCK 07. LEVEL 4 SECTOR 1 R.K PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 3:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTHEAST ZONE CRPF 9TH MILE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 4:THE CO OPTED MEMBER ARTC SUKHOVI DIMAPUR CENTRE CONDUCT OF PGT/PET OF COMBINED RECT RALLY FOR CONSTABLE GD IN CAPFS AND RIFLEMAN(GD) IN AR 2025 5:THE PRESIDING OFFICER Page No.# 2/8 PST/PET BOARD RECRUITMENT OF CT/GD - 2025 ARTC SUKHOVI DIMAPUR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K KASHYAB, MR. R BORA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. B SARMA(C.G.C.) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28-07-2026 Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for keeping 1 (one) post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) for consideration of her case in pursuance to the direction passed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 09-01-2026 in W.P.(C) No. 136/2026. 3. As consented to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition was taken up finally at the motion stage and is being disposed of by this order. 4. The petitioner in pursuance to an advertisement/ notice dated 05-09-2024, published by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for recruitment to the vacant post of Constable (GD) in CAPF, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles examination and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau examination, 2025, had submitted her candidature. The petitioner, thereafter, participated in the selection process and on qualifying in the Computer Based Test (CBT/ Physical Standard Test (PST)/ Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Page No.# 3/8 was under legitimate expectation that she would be selected against any one of the post so put up for recruitment. It is projected that during the PST, the height of the petitioner came to be measured as 154 cm and accordingly, her candidature was rejected. The petitioner being aggrieved had filed an appeal and thereafter, the height of the petitioner was again re-measured and it was found to be 154.6 cm. Accordingly, a rejection slip dated 10-09-2025 was issued to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature on the ground that she was not having the appropriate height for the purpose of recruitment in question, the petitioner had assailed the same by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 136/2026. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 09-01-2026, proceeded to allow the said writ petition and directed that the height of the petitioner be deemed to be 155 cm applying the provision of Clause-2(d) of the guidelines dated 20-05-2015. Accordingly, the rejection slip dated 10-09-2025 came to be set aside with a further direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (GD). The petitioner projects that she had proceeded to Dimapur to submit a copy of the order, however, the respondent authorities having not permitted her to enter the premises, the petitioner sent a copy of the order dated 09-01-2026 by post, which is projected to have been received by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 02-02-2026 and 31- 01-2026. The respondent authorities having not acted upon the said directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 136/2026 and the process for recruitment being taken forward, the petitioner had again instituted the present writ petition. Page No.# 4/8 5. Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above facts and has further placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI & Ors. Vs. Atul Kr. Verma & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 4423 – 4426/2026. 6. Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondent authorities before proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the direction passed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 09-01-2026 in W.P. (C) No. 136/2026, would have to verify the merit position obtained by the petitioner and also subject the petitioner to medical examination. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected only on the ground that her height on being measured was found to be 154.6 cm. The height prescription made for a female candidate belonging to the State of Assam for the purpose of said recruitment is 155 cm. The respondent authorities are found not to have rounded the height of the petitioner to the next higher number and accordingly, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. On a challenge made to the rejection slip issued to the petitioner on account of the said deficiency found in her height, a Coordinate Bench vide judgment and order dated 09-01-2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 136/2026 had drawn the following conclusions:- “7. The issue in the instant proceedings is squarely covered by the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. This Court is bound by the Page No.# 5/8 observations made in the said judgment. Apart from that, this Court having perused Clause 2(d) of the Guidelines dated 20.05.2015 is also of the opinion that the fraction of 0.5 cm and above is required to be rounded off to the next higher “cm” as it is the mandate of the said Clause 2(d) of the Guidelines dated 20.05.2015. 9. Considering the above, as the height of the petitioner is 154.6 cm, by applying Clause 2(d) of the Guidelines dated 20.05.2015, the height of the petitioner would be 155 cm and taking into account that the petitioner hails from the State of Assam, it is the minimum requisite height in terms with Clause 12.5.1.3(d) of the notice dated 05.09.2024. 10. Accordingly, this Court therefore sets aside the impugned rejection dated 10.09.2025 and directs the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of the Constable GD without insisting upon the rejection dated 10.09.2025. 11. Before parting with the record, this Court however clarifies that the above direction shall not preclude the Respondent Authorities to carry out other tests, viz., medical examination etc., if so required as per the notice dated 05.09.2025.” 9. It is seen that the said direction was passed by this Court in presence of the learned CGC appearing for the respondent, however, it is projected by the petitioner that the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench vide judgment and order dated 09-01-2026, has not been implemented. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Kr. Verma (Supra) had considered the issue similar to the one arising in the present writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on perusal of the paragraph 2(d) of the General Instruction for Recruitment Board as set out in OM dated 20-05-2015 had proceeded to draw the following conclusions:- “14. A plain reading of paragraph 2 (d) would reveal that the instruction(s) com contained therein is/are not confined to the Medical Officer or Medical Board. Rather, it applies universally to all responsible for measuring physical standards and, therefore, it would apply to Physical Standard Test Board (PST) as well. The Page No.# 6/8 argument that it would apply at the stage of medical examination of candidates shortlisted by PST and not to PST cannot be accepted as that would make it arbitrary and unworkable. Because if PST shortlists one who is 169.5 cm tall and rejects another who is also 169.5 cm tall, the one who is shortlisted will sail through by virtue of paragraph 2(d) of the instructions whereas the other would stand rejected. Such an interpretation, suggested by the learned ASG, as cannot be countenanced as it might lead to discrimination, or arbitrary selection/rejection, by PST. 15. The other submission of learned ASG that this rounding off is to be done only for the purposes of assessing whether the Body Mass Index (BMI) is in terms of the appendix attached to the Schedule is equally unacceptable. This we say so because, as per paragraph 11.6.2 of the recruitment notice, even the shortlisted candidates will have to be medically examined by the Medical Boards to assess their physical and medical fitness. Height being part of the physical standards specified, it can very well be considered to reject a candidature for not meeting the specified physical standard. Therefore, such examination by the Medical Board cannot be considered limited to examination of BMI. Moreover, instruction contained in paragraph 2 (d) that "In borderline cases of overweight, BMI should also be considered to arrive at conclusion and variation of 5Kg +/- from the minimum/maximum limit may be accepted" is separated by a 'full stop" from the next sentence "Similarly, while measuring height fraction of cm less than 0.5 will be ignored and 0.5 cm & more will be rounded off to the next higher cm." Thus, the argument of the learned ASG that the instruction in respect of rounding off height in the subsequent sentence is to be treated as confined to determining BMI is liable to be rejected. In our view, such an interpretation is not warranted as the two sentences are separate and have different roles. The first is in respect of consideration of BMI and the second is in respect of determining the height.” 11. The said conclusion drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirms the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding. Accordingly, the height of the petitioner measured as 154.6 cm has to be now rounded off to the next higher cm. Accordingly, the directions passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 09-01-2026, which is found to have been affirmed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Kr. Verma (Supra), would now mandated to Page No.# 7/8 be implemented. 12. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court passes the following directions:- (a) The respondent authorities would now consider the height of the petitioner as 155 cm by taking into account the fact that the petitioner hails from the State of Assam. (b) The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment against the post advertised vide advertisement/ notice dated 05-09-2024, by reckoning the merit position obtained by the petitioner in the said recruitment exercise. (c) It is provided that the respondent authorities, considering the lapse of time occasioning since the recruitment rally held in the matter, would be at liberty to subject the petitioner to a further medical examination, if so mandated. (d) The above exercise shall be initiated and concluded by the respondent authorities within a period of 01 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 14. Registry to furnish a copy of this order to Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC for onward transmission to the respondents, for compliance. JUDGE Page No.# 8/8 Comparing Assistant