S/L 32 11.09.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N M.A.T. 2022 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bikram Mondal & Ors. Mr. Tapan Bhanja … for the Union of India/Appellant. Mr. Debasish Kundu, Mr. Bidan Modak … for the Private Respondents. In Re: CAN 1 of 2025 1. There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in preferring the instant appeal by the Union of India. 2. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that due to inadvertence mistake in the prayer portion the delay of 27 days has been mentioned instead of 35 days. 3. Be that as it may, it appears from the statement made in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 that sufficient reason has been assigned for the delay in preferring the instant appeal. 4. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is no intentional latches on the part of the appellants in preferring the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and the appeal be registered accordingly. 5. Application being CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of. In Re: M.A.T. 2022 of 2025 6. After allowing the application we invited the learned advocates to address us on the merits of the appeal and 2 both the learned advocates submitted their respective submissions. 7. According to the learned advocate for the Union of India/Appellants, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. –Vs.- Atul Kumar Verma & Ors. in Civil Appeal No(s) 4423-4426/2026 SLP (C) Nos. 13390-13393/2026 and Diary No. 68753/2025 has already settled the controversy pending in the present case. 8. As per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, candidates who participated in the process of recruitment of constables (GD) in the force as their height if found/measured as 169.5 centimetres and above, then 0.5 would have to be ignored and 169.5 and more would have to be rounded off to the next higher centimetre. Such candidates cannot be disqualified on ground of less height, if they are 169.5 centimetres or above. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed such order in an appeal in identical circumstances as arising for consideration in the present case. 10. The learned advocate for the appellants fairly submits that since the writ petitioners were not found to be below 169.5 cm. during their height measurement, therefore, nothing survives in the present appeal. 11. Since the appeal has become infructuous in view of the above noted decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the same is accordingly disposed of. 12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 3 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)