Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6772

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1360 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Moti Lal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Moti Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Deepsikha, learned Chief Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

It has been submitted that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment of Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Civil Police Direct Recruitment, 2023 and had appeared in the written examination on 25.8.2024 where he was declared successful. Subsequently, the petitioner was called for document verification / physical standards test on 17.1.2025 in Reserve Police Lines, Unnao where initially his height was determined to be 167.4 cms. and when the petitioner protested his case was looked into by appellate medical board which determined the height of the petitioner to be 167.7 cms. Considering the fact that the minimum height required for appointment to the said post is 168 cms. and the petitioner had fallen short of his height by 0.03 cms. his candidature has been rejected. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court stating that his height has not been measured correctly and accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents to give him one more opportunity to determine his height.

¶7

Learned Chief Standing counsel, on the other hand, has produced a copy of the written instructions received from Superintendent of Police, Unnao along with a copy of the result of the appellate medical board which was held on 17.1.2025 which had determined the height of the petitioner to be 167.7 cm. It was further stated that two opportunities were granted to the petitioner; in both the attempts his height was below the required standard; as per the rules only two attempts are required to be given to asses height; the petitioner has already exhausted two attempts; there is no provision for another opportunity to be granted to him by the authorities and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the same and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶8

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

¶9

It is noticed that the minimum required height is 168 cms.

¶10

while at the first instance during physical examination the height of the petitioner was determined to be 167.4 cms. and when the petitioner had appeared before the appellate medical broad then his height was determined to be 167.7 cms. thus there is variation of 0.3 cm in the determination made by the respondents themselves on the same date on two occasions.

¶11

Accordingly, we find that even the respondents have not been consistent in their findings and there is variation in determination which stands unexplained. The other reason which we find is that there is no mention as to the mode of measurement; whether it was physical measurement by tape or by electronic device; which are standard of measurements has not been sated. Considering that there are large number of candidates whose height are measured, there should be a standardization, if not already adopted by the respondents, and the said measurement should entail minimum human intervention to ensure that the said exercise is fair and uniform for all the candidates.

¶12

We fail to understand as to how on the same day there can be difference in the height measured by two medical boards with regard to the same individual. Also considering the fact that the petitioner has fallen short of 0.3 cm. which is an extremely small margin and we have also taken into account the amount of human error in making the measurement leaving a chance of error which may be possible and accordingly, benefit of the same has to be given to the candidate. In light of the above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, especially taking into account the fact that there has already been variation in determination of height by two medical boards, as a measure of last opportunity, we find a case for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 i.e. Controller of Examination- DV/PST (Document Verification/Physical Standards Test) Reserve Police Line, Unnao, who shall constitute a medical board expeditiously, say within a period of two days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and shall re-asses the height of the petitioner. In case the height of the petitioner is found to be 168 cm. he shall be allowed to further participate in the selection procedure.

¶14

With aforesaid direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 31.1.2025 RKM.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Udar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Himanshu Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Aditya Kumar and 21 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Finance Deptt Lko. and 2 Others

Heera Lal Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko and 5 Others

Neeraj Kumar and 24 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others