Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010157462026 2026:GAU- AS:11395-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4261/2026 BIKASH CHAUHAN ROLL NUMBER- 5107010774, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SON OF SRI SHIV KUMAR CHAUHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAWAIBILL NO. 3, PO- LAMSAKHANG, P.S.- KHERONI, DIST.- WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY BLOCK - 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK- 07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI- 110066. 4:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EAST ZONE CRPF 9TH MILE AMERIGOG Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM. 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES LAITKOR SHILLONG PIN- 793011 MEGHALAYA. 6:THE PRESIDING OFFICER ARTC AND S SUKHOVI DIMAPUR CENTRE CONDUCT OF PST/PET OF COMBINED RECRUITMENT RALLY FOR CONSTABLE (GD) IN CAPFS ANP RIFLEMAN (GD) IN ASSAM RIFLES 2025. 7:THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARTC AND S SUKHOVI DIMAPUR CENTRE CONDUCT OF PST/PET OF COMBINED RECRUITMENT RALLY FOR CONSTABLE (GD) IN CAPFS AND RIFLEMAN (GD) IN ASSAM RIFLES 2025 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. R.Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC for the respondents, Union of India. [2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage. Page No.# 3/4 [3.] It is the second time the petitioner is before this Court. The earlier writ petition being WP(C)/5684/2025 was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2025, by directing the respondent authority concerned to expeditiously consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection of his candidature for the post of Constable for want of the required height i.e. 165 cms. Since the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner was also led to file a contempt petition i.e., Contempt Case No.49/2026. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the authority has communicated to the petitioner on 12.05.2026 about the rejection of his appeal. [4.] A perusal of the rejection to the appeal annexed as Annexure-D to this writ petition would go to show that the measurement undertaken at the recruitment centre on 26.08.2025 has been shown as the grounds for not accepting the appeal. Further it is also indicated that there is no provision for relaxation of height. The petitioner is required to have at least the height of 165 cms, whereas, he has measured to be 164 cms and therefore his appeal was rejected. [5.] It may also be noticed that as per the PST rejection slip annexed as Annexure-B to the writ petition, while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for deficiency of height, it was indicated that he may prefer an appeal in writing before the appellate authority on the same day through the Presiding Officer. The petitioner admittedly preferred the appeal, but from the rejection of the appeal it is not discernable that his height was re-measured. Instead the height measured on 26.08.2025 appears to have been relied upon for rejecting his appeal. [6.] Under the circumstance, writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to re-measure the height of the petitioner and thereafter, Page No.# 4/4 to communicate him the finding of the re-measurement. Such an exercise be done within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by respondent No.7. JUDGE Comparing Assistant