Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010009872026 2026:GAU-AS:11693 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/439/2026 ARUP RAY AND 6 ORS S/O JATIN RAY, R/O VILL- NO. 2 DAKHIN MAKRA, P.O. SILBARI ABADIPARA, P.S. BIJNI, DIST. CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN -783393, ROLL NO 5105071822 2: PRABHASH SUTRADHAR S/O ARJUN SUTRADHAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. JANIA P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM, PIN 781314 ROLL NO 5105054871 3: KAYUM ALI S/O DORAG ALI R/O VILL AND P.O. NOWAGAON P.S. MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM, PIN 783392 ROLL NO 5105030515 4: RATUL TALUKDAR S/O LT KUMUD TALUKDAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. BHOTANTA MAHITARA DIST BAJALI ASSAM, PIN 781328 ROLL NO 5105019737 5: NARESH GOWALA S/O LAKHMAN GOWALA RO VILL. NO. 1 KALAIGAON P.O. AND P.S. KALAIGAON DIST UDALGURI ASSAM, PIN 784525 ROLL NO 5105065296 Page No.# 2/11 6: NIRAB PRATIM MEDHI S/O JAYANTA MEDHI R/O VILL MATHARBORI P.O. RAMJUNGATI P.S. RAHA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM, PIN 782103 ROLL NO 5105076368 7: TINKU CHETRY S/O CHANDRABIR CHETRY R/O VILL CHARIPHUKHURI P.O. RAMAGACHAKUA P.S. JAMMUGURIHAT DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM, PIN 784182 ROLL NO 511200525 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 1 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR, GHY 6 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (RECRUITMENT) EAST BLOCK 07 LEVEL 4 SECTOR 01 RK PURAM NEW DELHI - 66 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES Page No.# 3/11 NONGRIMMAW LAITMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA 11 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 03 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE BLOCK NO IV CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 03 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 9:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DIGP) CRPF CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI 2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR N ALI,MR. D DEKA,MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY(CGC, ALL) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI O R D E R 17.08.2026. Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondent authorities. Page No.# 4/11 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction upon the respondent authorities to conduct their Detailed Medical Examination and Document Verification. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 issued by the respondent No. 2 for recruitment to the posts of Constable (G.D.) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (G.D.) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in the Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2025, the petitioners applied for the post of Constable (G.D.). 4. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that they successfully completed the Computer Based Examination; however, their candidatures were rejected at the stage of the Physical Standard Test (PST) solely on the ground that their height was short of the prescribed 165 cm by 0.2 cm to 0.5 cm. According to the petitioners, such rejection was contrary to paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, which provides that while measuring height, a fraction of a centimetre less than 0.5 cm is to be ignored, whereas 0.5 cm and above is to be rounded off to the next higher centimetre. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Others v. Atul Kumar Verma & Others, in Civil Appeal Nos. 4423–4426 of 2026, arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13390–13393 of 2026, @ Diary No. 68753 of 2025, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that, in terms of paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, a fraction of 0.5 cm and above, while determining height, is required to be rounded off to the next higher centimetre. Page No.# 5/11 Mr. Deka further submits that the petitioners, having been measured in the range of 164.5 cm to 164.9 cm, were therefore required to be treated as having attained the qualifying height of 165 cm, thereby making them eligible to participate in the subsequent stages of the selection process, having regard to the height standard applicable to candidates belonging to the State of Assam. 6. Learned CGC appearing for the respondent authorities, with his usual fairness, concedes the aforesaid position in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, as interpreted by the Apex Court in Atul Kumar Verma (supra). 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that under the subject advertisement dated 05.09.2024, the height prescribed under Clause 12.5 for the Physical Standard Test, in the case of male candidates, is 170.0 cm. However, in the case of candidates belonging to certain categories, including candidates from the State of Assam, the prescribed height is 165.0 cm. It further appears that, in terms of Clause 12.6 of the said advertisement, a candidate qualifying in the Physical Standard Test is required to participate in the next stage, namely, the Detailed Medical Examination and Document Verification. 8. In the present case, the petitioners, being candidates belonging to the State of Assam, were called for the Physical Standard Test. Upon measurement, their heights were found to be below 165.0 cm and, consequently, their candidatures were rejected on the ground of failure to meet the prescribed height standard. Page No.# 6/11 9. It appears that, thereafter, petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5456/2025, W.P.(C) No. 5750/2025, W.P.(C) No. 5337/2025, W.P.(C) No. 5288/2025, W.P.(C) No. 5411/2025 and W.P.(C) No. 5455/2025, respectively. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of, permitting the petitioners to prefer appeals before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioners, including the present petitioner No. 7, preferred their respective appeals. Thereafter, their heights were once again measured and were found to be below 165.0 cm, ranging from 164.5 cm to 164.8 cm, and their candidatures were again rejected on the ground of failure to meet the prescribed height standard. The respective measurements recorded in respect of the petitioners are as follows: Sl. No. Name Height found in (cms) Height short in (cms) 1. Arup Ray 164.6 0.4 2. Prabhash Sutradhar 164.5 0.5 3. Kayum Ali 164.7 0.3 4. Ratul Talukdar 164.8 0.2 5. Naresh Gowala 164.7 0.3 6. Nirab Pratim Medhi 164.7 0.3 7. Tinku Chetry 164.6 0.4 10. Accordingly, rejection slips were individually issued to the petitioners. Situated thus, the petitioners once again approached this Court by filing Page No.# 7/11 individual writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No. 6436/2025, W.P.(C) No. 5906/2025, W.P.(C) No. 6441/2025 and W.P.(C) No. 5865/2025. The aforesaid writ petitions were heard and, by a common judgment and order dated 02.12.2025, this Court allowed the writ petitions by directing that the petitioners’ heights be rounded off in terms of paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 and treating them as qualified to participate in the Detailed Medical Examination. The relevant paragraphs of the common judgment and order dated 02.12.2025 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “18. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that the respondents have wrongly disqualified the petitioners at the stage of the Physical Standard Test by ignoring the relaxation relating to rounding off, which ought to have been applied at the PST stage itself, and the respondents have misconstrued Clause 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 by treating such relaxation as applicable only at the stage of the Detailed Medical Examination. Accordingly, the disqualification of the petitioners by orders dated 29.08.2025, 30.08.2025, 23.09.2025, 27.10.2025, 29.10.2025 are hereby set aside. 19. Consequently, the petitioners, whose heights have been recorded and measured during the Physical Standard Test as 164.5 cm and above but below 165 cm, are entitled to be rounded off to 165 cm in terms of Clause 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 and declare them eligible to participate in the subsequent stage of recruitment process, i.e. Detailed Medical Examination. It is ordered accordingly”. 11. It appears that, instead of giving effect to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.12.2025, the respondents preferred appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, upon the Apex Court having settled the issue in Atul Kumar Verma & Others (supra), wherein it was clearly held that, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, a fraction of 0.5 cm and above is required to be rounded off to the next higher centimetre, the respondent authorities withdrew the aforesaid appeals, being W.A. No. 166/2026, W.A. No. 168/2026 and W.A. No. 188/2026, on 16.06.2026. 12. Paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 reads as Page No.# 8/11 follows: “d) Measurement of physical standards viz. Height, weight, and chest is the responsibility of the Physical Standard Test Board (PST Board) for all categories of candidates i.e. GOs, SOs and Ors. Medical officers will not be part of PST Board both for Male & Female candidates. Since presence of a female is required at the time of recording of physical standard (PST), a female non-medical staff may be associated with PST Board. Recruiting medical officer need not record the physical measurements. Recruiting medical officer will mention physical standard in the medical examination form as recorded by the PST board. 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. 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. Standard height-weight chart is attached at ANNEXURE-I.”. 13. The aforesaid provision has been considered and interpreted by the Apex Court in Atul Kumar Verma & Others (supra), holding that the principle of rounding off contained in paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 applies to the height measured by the Physical Standard Test Board as well. 14. Thus, in terms of paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, while measuring height, a fraction of a centimetre below 0.5 cm is to be ignored, whereas a fraction of 0.5 cm and above is required to be rounded off to the next higher centimetre. 15. Applying the aforesaid standard to the case of the petitioners, it is evident that all the petitioners were measured in the range of 164.5 cm to 164.8 cm. Each of the aforesaid measurements involves a fraction of 0.5 cm or more and, therefore, was required to be rounded off to the next higher centimetre. Consequently, the height of each of the petitioners is required to be treated as 165.0 cm. Since 165.0 cm is the prescribed qualifying height for candidates belonging to the State of Assam, the petitioners satisfy the height requirement for the Physical Standard Test. Page No.# 9/11 16. In that view of the matter, the candidatures of the petitioners, having been rejected solely on the ground of failure to meet the prescribed height standard, cannot be sustained and are liable to be interfered with. 17. It is significant to note that this Court, by its common judgment and order dated 02.12.2025, had already adjudicated upon the very issue which arises for consideration in the present writ petition and had specifically directed the respondent authorities to round off the height of the petitioners in terms of paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 and permit them to participate in the subsequent stage of the recruitment process, namely, the Detailed Medical Examination. The relevant directions contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment have already been extracted hereinabove. 18. It further appears that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.12.2025 was assailed by the respondent authorities before the Division Bench of this Court. However, the said appeals, being W.A. No. 166/2026, W.A. No. 168/2026 and W.A. No. 188/2026, came to be withdrawn by the respondents on 16.06.2026. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 02.12.2025 has attained finality and is binding upon the respondent authorities. 19. Once the aforesaid judgment and order had attained finality, there was no justification for the respondent authorities not to comply with the directions contained therein. The respondents were required to give effect to the order of this Court in its letter and spirit, particularly the specific directions contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 thereof. The respondents could not have sought to sit in appeal over, or otherwise disregard, a judgment which had attained finality. Page No.# 10/11 20. It is also required to be observed that an order passed by the writ Court does not require a further writ petition for its execution or implementation. Once a writ of mandamus or a positive direction has been issued by the Court and the same has attained finality, the authority upon whom such direction is issued is bound to comply with the same. The remedy for enforcement of such an order, in the event of deliberate or willful non-compliance, lies in appropriate proceedings for contempt and not by compelling the litigant to institute a fresh writ petition seeking substantially the same relief which already stands granted. 21. In the peculiar facts of the present case, however, since the petitioners have once again approached this Court complaining of non-compliance with the earlier judgment and order, and since the respondent authorities have not disputed the factual position or the applicability of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, this Court considers it appropriate to reiterate the directions already issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 02.12.2025. 22. Accordingly, the respondent authorities shall comply with the judgment and order dated 02.12.2025, particularly the directions contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 thereof. The height of each of the petitioners, having been recorded between 164.5 cm and 164.8 cm, shall be rounded off to 165.0 cm in terms of paragraph 2(d) of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, and the petitioners shall accordingly be treated as having qualified in the Physical Standard Test and be permitted to participate in the subsequent stage of the recruitment process, namely, the Detailed Medical Examination and Document Verification. 23. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month Page No.# 11/11 from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 24. It is made clear that the respondents shall, therefore, comply with the aforesaid directions in their true letter and spirit, without requiring the petitioners to undertake any further round of litigation for implementation of the order. 25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant