Allowed

Talari Meghanath, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Oct 2023WP/26479/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged the disqualification of applicants in a Police Sub-Inspector recruitment due to accurate height readings obtained from a digital machine varying across attempts. The High Court found discrepancies in measurements compared to a prior 2018 exam, ordered a one-time manual remeasurement of eligible candidates, and directed them to be considered further if found eligible.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to fix a date for manual measurement of petitioners' heights and chests, involve experts if needed, and allow eligible candidates to participate in the next examination stage

Talari Meghanath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT( (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION Nos: 26479 & 26653 of 2023

¶5

WRIT PETITION No: 26479 of 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Talari Meghanath, S/Q T Venu Gopal, Aged 25 Years, Si Registration Number: 5002437 Address: Dno:7/382, Rahamath Nagar, Anantapur-515001.

¶8

2.Gujjala Prathapa Reddy, S/O G Lakshmi Reddy, Age 34, Vennapusa Palli Village , Yellanur Mandal, Anantapur Dist 515465, Reg No 5095-598.

¶9

3.Shaik Sufiyan, S/O Chand Pasha, Age -28, R/O Burgampahad (Village & Mandal ) 8hadradri Kothagudem Dist Telangana, Registration Number :-5000002

¶10

4.Gummali Sudhakar, S/O G. Ramudu, Age: 28, Regd No: 5075982 R/O Tharapuram Village, Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶11

5.Koppada David Raju 5/O Chakravarthi, Age: 28, R/O : 23-43/3, Peda Paiiava Palem, Mogaithur Mandal, West Godavari District. Reg No: 5035497.

¶12

6.Ponukumati Sai Kiran, S/Q Ganga Raju, Age: 23, RIO 7-27 Ambedkar Street, Jagannadhapuram, Tadepalligudem West Godavari .534145

¶13

7.Arugollu Durga Prasad, $/O Venkata Narayudu, Age: 32 R/Q D-No 1- 309,Talluru Post, Gandepaili Mandal, East Godavari Dist,Andhra Pradesh. Regd No: 5157160

¶14

8.Nalagatla Maiiikharjuna, S/O. Nalagatla Gangaiah, Aged 28 Years, Reg No.512876, H.No :-7-180,Gopalnagar Village,Singarayakonda Mandal,Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

9.Bandi Srikanth, S/O. Prasad, Age. 28 , Regd No-5122979, RIO Rentachintala, Post &(M.D), Guntur Dist.,

¶16

10.Beti Chinna Chennaiah, 5/0: B. Chennaiah, Age: 30, Read No: 5078379 R/0 Mukundapuram Village, Rudravaram Mandalam, Kurnool District.

¶17

11.Sudarsi Ravindra Babu, S/O S.Sivaiah, Age : 32, R/O Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam gist, Pin 523174, Regd No 5143253

¶18

Kola Harsha Vardhan S/o Ramakrishna, aged 24 years, Rio Sainagar, Ananathapur, reg no. 5019432.

¶19

13.Deeravath Rama Krishna S/O Deeravath Thavudiya , Age 28 Years, R/O Reddy Naik Thanda, Budawada Village Jaggayyapet (Mandal), Ntr District.reg no.5088875.

¶20

14.Bonu Raghuram, S/O B. Appalaswami, Aged 29 Years, R/0 Kandulapadam (Village ) Salur (Mandal) Viziyanagaram( District. Reg no. 5037302.

¶21

15.M G Ganesh Kalyan, Fathers Name: M G Gopal, Aged 24 Years, R/0 Kurnool, reg no.5081512.

¶22

16.R Venugo~ai Surendra Kumar, S/O R Sunkanna, Aged 27 Years, R/O Eddupenta Village Dhone Mandal Kurnool Dist. Reg no.5067084.

¶23

17.G Lavanyakumar, S/O G Mohanarao, Aged 27 Years, R/O D: No- 1- 138 , Srikakuiam. Reg no. 5060987

¶24

18.Kummari_ Ashok Kumar, Father Name: K Parameswaraiah, Aged 29 Years, R/O D.No: 1-4, Gulamaliabad(Vg)Banaganapalle(Mdl) Kurnool (Dst) Pin Code-518220. Peg no. 502996.5.

¶25

19.Kummari Nagaraju, S/O K Parameswaraiah, Aged 32 Years, R/O Dr.No: 1-4, Gulamaliabad(Vg)Banaganapalle(Mdl) Kurnool (Dst) Pin Code-518220.reg no. 5077968.

¶26

20.R Naveen Naik S/O R Punna Naik, Aged 23 Years, R/O Kasikunta Thanda (Village) Yerragondapalem(Md) Prakasam District. Reg no. 5113819.

¶27

21.Gajjala Jagajeevan, S/O Jagan, Aged 28 Years, R/O Vykuntapuram, Chirala, Prakasam District. Reg no. 5123502.

¶28

22.T.Vijay Kumar S/O Mohanrao, Aged 32 Years, R/O Sobhanadripuram Village, Bapulapadu Mandal; Krishna District.

¶29

23.Vanjarapu Rambabu, S/O Bangarunaidu, Aged 27 Years, R/O Gurla Village, Vizianagaram Dist. Reg no. 5029952

¶30

24.B.Madhusudhan, S/O Narayana, Aged 27 Years, R/O Madarpurarn, Veldurthi, Kurnool Dist.,reg no. 5127387

¶31

25.M.Uday Kiran, S/o Tatalu, aged 28 years, R/o Bodapalem, Koturatla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Reg no. 5080111.

¶32

26.V.Gopi Raju 5/0 Buchiraju, aged 27 years, R/o 1-16/3, Kotha Edara, Agiripaili Mandal, W.G.Dist, Reg no. 5127285.

¶33

27.Banavath Gopi S/O Balu, Aged 21 Years, RIO Budavada, Jaggaihpeta Mandal, Krishna Dist.,

¶34

28.Oamala Venugopala Rao, S/o Venkateswar{u, aged 28 years, R/o Venganayakunipalem, -penuganchIprolu mandal, Krishna District. Reg no. 5086669.

¶35

29.Danekula Venkateswarulu, S/o Nagaiah, aged 29 years, R/o Nellore, Reg no. 5129173.

¶36

30.Damala Venkatrao S/o Tirupatiah, aged 23 years, Reg no.5079036. Venganayakunipalem, Penuganchiprolu mandal, Krishna District.

¶37

31.Gattam Suresh S/o Kutumbarao, aged 28 years, R/o Pothanapa{li, Chatrai (M) W.G.Dist, reg no. 5160904.

¶38

32.Penikicharla Guruswamy 5/0 Guravaiah, aged 25 years, R/o Kanigiri, Prakasam District, Reg no. 5050195.

¶39

33.M. Sivakumar, S/o M Sudhakar, Age :30, R/o :Kothakota (v), dhone (m) Nandyal (d) Reg. NO: 5032020.

¶40

34.Jala Suneetha D/o Balaswamy, aged 28 years, R/o Thatiakulagudem, Jelugumilli M) W.G.District, Reg no. 5019707.

¶41

35.Shaik Rasul S/o Shaik Rafi, aged 27 years, R/o Nellore, Nellore District. Reg no. 5025404.

¶42

36.Valmiki Pasula Rangababu S/o Rangappa, aged 33 years, R/o h.no.3-236, Uppara street, Emigannuru, Kurnool District. Reg no. 5103801.

¶43

37.Gajja Trinadh, S/o Nagaiah, aged 25 years, R/o Polampalii, Vatsavai, Krishna Dist., Reg no.5075982.

¶44

Mondru Babu S/o Rambabu, aged 29 years, R/o Pothanapaili, Chatrai (M) W.G.Dist, Reg no. 5084720.

¶45

Golla Kiran Kumar Yadav 5/0 Urukundu, aged 28 years, R/o Kodumure, Kurnool, reg no. 5012803.

¶46

Beti China^{Chennaiah S/o Chennaiah, aged 30 years, R/o} Mukundapuram,^{Rudravaram Mandai, Kurnool District. Reg no.} 5078379.

¶47

Petitioners

¶48

-AND

¶49

The State^{of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary,} Home^{Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur} District.

¶50

State^{Level Police Recruitment Board of Andhra Pradesh,} Mangalagiri, Guntur^{District rep by its Chairman.}

¶51

The^{Director General and Inspector General of Police,} Andhra Pradesh,^{Mangalagiri, Guntur District.} ..Respondents

¶52

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd Respondent in conducting Height AND Chest measurement as part of Physical Measurement with an inaccurate Digital Height and Chest Measuring machine which gives every time a different reading and resulted in disqualifying of the petitioners who are fully qualified and most of them had qualified with more height and chest in earlier recruitment of 2019 conducted by the same respondent board as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory against principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently Direct the 2^nd Respondent to Retake the height and chest of the Petitioner herein forthwith with MANUAL measuring system and allow the Petitioners herein to participate in the further selection process in the interest of justice.

¶53

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶54

Petition under Section 151 CPC preying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Notification R.C.No.163/SLRPB/RECT-1/2023, Dt- 2811-2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

¶56

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶57

WRIT PETITION NO: 26653 OF 2023 Between:

¶58

1.Basava Veerababu, S/o Basava naAdinarayana,Age 28 years,R/o Mantada Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District,REG NO.5049399.

¶59

2.Pichike Raja sekhar ,S/o P.Sannanna, Aged.31 years, R/o Harijanawada village, Nandyal mandal , Nandyal District, REG NO. 5057356.

¶60

3.Kopalle. Suresh babu,S/o Ravi babu, Aged 24 years, R/o Kancharalapalem viilage,TenaIi. mandal, Guntur district,REG NO.5138205.

¶61

4.Bolle Nagendra,S/o Bolle Muneaiah, Aged 27 years,R/o Uppalur village, Sakn mandal, Kadapa district,REG NO.5126933.

¶62

5.Kanala Shabbeer Hussain, S/0 Kanala Hussain Peera, Aged 26 years, R/o Thimmanayuni peta Village, Kolimigundla Mandal,Kurnool District, REG NO.5043254.

¶63

6.Ganjikunta Chandra Shekar S/o Koteswararao, aged 30 years, R/o Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District, Reg no. 5054500.

¶64

7.Karnadi Srinivasa Varma, S/O : Kamadi Venkateswarlu, Age : 25 years, RIO: 2-127, Gadimoga, Thallarevu, East Godavari, reg no: 5018517.

¶65

8.Talari Ramanjaneyulu,S/O Talari Lakshmanna, Aged 25 years, R/o Jonnagiri Village,Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool district,Reg No.5024663.

¶66

9.Kuruba Umesh, S/o Kuruba Hanumanthappa Aged 23 years,R/o B.sajjalaguddam Village, Kosigi Mandal,Kurnool District,REC NO 5091920.

¶67

10.Reddyvari Prasad,S/o Reddyvari munireddy, Aged 29 years, R/o Gundellgunta Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupathi district, REG NO 5048630.

¶68

11.Gorantlagari Mani ,S/o G Yellakrishna, Aged 27 years, R/o Cherlakotthur Village, Veldhurthy Mandal, kurnool district ,REG NO.5057468.

¶69

12.Nasaka Suresh,S/o Nasaka Trinadha, Aged 32 years,R/o Cheepurupafli Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal,Vizianagaram District, REG NO .5021609.

¶70

¶71

13.Singala Manikanta, S/o Singala Krishnaiah, aged 30 years, R/o MachLipalli, Kadapa District, REG NO.5122348

¶72

14.Arunbabu Gurivindapalli ,S/o Baburao,Aged 33 years, .R/o Gurazada Village,Pamidimukkala Mandal,Krishna district,REGD NO:5055893.

¶73

15.Meesarapu Suresh Babu,S/o Sampatha Rao, aged 30 years,R/o Rammaya hall Street,palakollu mandal, west g.odavari District,REG NO.5018300.

¶74

16.Palla Suresh,S/O Rajulu, aged 30 years R/o Parupaka Villages, Rowthulapudi Mandal, Kakinada Disrict,REG NO.5045416.

¶75

17.Kokkiligadda Devadanaiah, S/o K.Swamulu, aged 30 years ,R/o Pallepalema Village, Chinagajam Mandal, Bapatla District, Reg. NO.5148261.

¶76

18.N Hussain peera,S/o N Subhan sab, aged 28 years ,R/o Holagundha Village Holagundha Mandala,Alur taluka, Kurnool district, REG NO 5005502.

¶77

19.Pinnika Venkateswarlu S/o Nagasesshaiah, aged 29 years, R/o Thammadapalli Village, Thangiralapalli Post, Peddaraveedu Mandal,Prakasam District ,REG NO:5089278.

¶78

20.Gopisetty Ramesh,S/0 Gopisetty venkateswarlu, Aged 3lyears,R/0 Yerragondapalem Village & Mandal, Prakasam district, REG NO.5117390.

¶79

21.Pittu Madhavarao, S/o. Pittu Tirupathivenkaiah, aged 31 years, R/o Door no.2-51 perlavaripalem village, Burlavaripalem panchayat, chirala Mandal, Bapatla District, A.P. Reg.No:5020792.

¶80

22.Ramavath Mantru Naik, s/o Amarsingh naik, aged 31 years, R/o 3- 114, Narajamula Thanda village, Pullalacheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District, Reg.no. 5030360.

¶81

23.Bollavaram Ashok S/o Rambupal, aged 32 years, R/o 1-14, BC colony, Aiwala, Kurnool District, Reg.no.5009359.

¶82

~-o

¶83

24.Konduru Uday Kiran S/o Baburao, aged 25 years, R/o1-170, Pedakonduru post, Duggerala Mandal, Guntur District, Reg no. 5004551.

¶84

25.Maddala Surendra 8abu S/o Koteswara rao, aged 28 years, R/o Ullipalem Village, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District, Reg no. 5041559.

¶85

26.Chakali Veeranna S/o C. Lakshmanna, aged 28 years, R/o H.No.:337/2, Ternekal Village, DevanakQnda ( M), Kurnool Dist., A.P.,Reg. no: 5000448.

¶86

27.M Satheesh Kumar naick, S/o M Nanikya Naick, aged 28 years, R/o PM thanda (v) pallikuppam (P) Ramakuppam (M) chittor Reg.no:5040180.

¶87

28.Kowluri Sukhadanam S/o Bangaraya, aged 30 years, R/o Surayyapeta, Thalapudi Mandal, E.G. District, Reg.no. 5090737.

¶88

29.NaUabothula Rama Krishna S/o Narasimhulu, aged 28 years, R/o BC colony, Agasanuru, Kurnool District, Reg no. 5044119.

¶89

30.Sabbavarapu Pranav Raja, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 29 years, R/o Kakinada, E.G.District, Reg no. 5061392.

¶90

31.Manchala Kanaka Durga D/o M.Ramarao( Late), aged 34 years, H.No; 12-3-27, Fathimapuram, Guntur, Guntur Dist., A.P., Reg. no: 5137498.

¶91

32.Donga Satyanarayana, S/o Pullarao, Age -27 Years, R/o House No :6-199, Janakiram Colony, Kummarapurugu Palem South, Mogalthur Mandal, West Godavari, Reg No :5066789.

¶92

33.Paramata Nitish Kumar, S/o P. Venkata ramana, aged 27 years, R/o: House No-2-195, Bondala cheruvu, Nallamilli Village, Amalapuram (M), East Godavari District, A.P, Reg no: 5130279.

¶93

34.Desavath Anju Naik, S/o Tirupal naik, aged 25 years, r/o Pasupula thanda, Banaganapallli Mandal, Kurnool District, Reg no. 5083761.

¶94

35.Doddi Govindu, S/o Sunkanna, aged 30 years, R/o Gurrabadu village, Gunthakal Mandal, Ananthapuram District, Reg no. 5091637.

¶95

36.Nagarapu Gowriraju, S/o N. Guruvulu, aged 30 years, R/o Alugolu village, Nellimaria (mandal) VIZIANAGARAM (dist), SI Reg. no. 5076816.

¶96

37.Nelavafi Divya sal venkat, S/o Nelavalli Sangana Koteswara rao, aged 25 years, R/o Kanagala village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatla District, Reg no. 5077675.

¶97

38.Malapati Srinivasareddy S/o. Malapati Pulla Reddy, age 27 years, Veerabhadrapuram Village Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. Reg No 5051206.

¶98

39.Manda Mahendra S/O M.Babulu, Aged 23 years, R/O Damavara-m (V)(Post) Dagadharthi (M) Spsr Nellore (Dist) Reg No 5113537.

¶99

40.Thavanam Venkata Subbareddy, S/O Venkatareddy, Aged 27 Years, R/O Naidupalli Village Tarlupadu Mandal Prasakasam District, Registration No:5166565.

¶100

41.Chodipalli Krishna Prasad S/o Avatharam, Age:28, R/O D.No:11-2 Pudimadaka (Village) Atchuthapuram (Mandalarn) Anakapalli (dist) Reg no:5072379.

¶101

42.Bellamkonda Satyanarayana, s/o Sambasivarao, aged 25, Janapadu village,piduguralla mandal,guntur district,reg no :5005961.

¶102

43.Shaik Elias S/o S. Darvesh Mohiddin Saheb, aged 34 years, Rio YSR District, Reg no. 5088564.

¶103

44.Boya Manohar Kumar, S/o B.Kambagiri Swamy, aged 28 years, Theliki (v) Peddavadugur (m) Anantapur (d), Reg no :5051888.

¶104

• 45.Ramesh babu Sreekanth, S/o Rameshbabu, aged Goliapalii village, kuppam mandal, chittoor district, Reg no:5026519.

¶105

46.Ramavath Ramesh Naik, S/o Vail Naik, aged 32 years, R/o Bachinepalli thanda Village, gooti Mandal, Ananthapuram Dist., Reg no. 5010202.

¶106

47.Dasaraju Naresh, S/o Lakshmi Narayana, age 30 years, Chinamodugapalli (V), Vatsavai Mandal, NTR Dist, Reg. No: 5146349.

¶107

48.Shaik Baji, S/o shaik saleem, aged 33 years, Resident of chilakaiuripet urban, guntur district, Registration number 5032408.

¶108

49.Kondepudi Krishna Chaitanya, S/o Kondepudi Bhushanam, aged 29 years, Rio Dr no. 52-11-1, East godavari dist, Reg no. 5006196.

¶109

50.Birru Prasanth S/o Yeliya, aged 30 years, Rio Peddajonnavaram, Duwuru Mandal, Kadapa District, Reg no. 5068323.

¶110

Ram mohan Krishna^{Yenugula S/o Suresh babu aged 23 years, R/o} Guntur Road, Narasaraopeta,^{Guntur District, Reg no.5127326.}

¶111

Mondru^{Babu S/o Rambabu, age 26 years, R/o chintalapudi, W.G.,} District, Reg no. 5084720.

¶112

53.^{Nurukurthi Chadra Sekhar S/o Suryaprakashrao, aged 29 years,} R/o 1-53,^{Thurangi, Kakinada, E.G.District, Reg no. 5082330.}

¶113

Dhara Ajay^{Surya S/o Suryanarayana, aged 26 years, R/o 401,} simhapuri pride^{apartment, Moolapeta, Nellore, SPS nellore district,} Reg no.^5001683.

¶114

55.^{Tiruveedula Balaji S/o Rangayya, aged 31 years, R/o Puthururajula} street, chirala station^{road, Chirala,. Prakasam Dist, Reg no. 5091254.}

¶115

..Petitioners

¶116

AND

¶117

The State of^{Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary,} Home Department,^{Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur} District.

¶118

State Level^{Police Recruitment Board of Andhra Pradesh,} Mangalagiri, Guntur District^{rep by its Chairman.}

¶119

The^{Director General and Inspector General of Police,} Andhra Pradesh,^{Mangalagiri, Guntur District.}

¶120

..Respondent/s

¶121

I-'etition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"d Respondent in conducting Height and Chest measurement as part of Physical Measurement with an inaccurate Digital Height and Chest Measuring machine for Notification R.C.No 163/SLRPB/RECT1/2023, Dt. 28-11-2022, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory against principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently Direct the 2"d Respondent to undertake the height and chest measurements MANUALLY by allowing the Petitioners to participate in the further selection process in the interest of justice.

¶122

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶123

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Notification R.C.No.163/SLRPB/RECT-1/2023, dated 28-11-2022, alternatively permitting the Petitioners to participate in the further selection process in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶124

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

¶125

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶126

The Court made the following: common order

¶127

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶128

Writ Petition Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶129

COMMON ORDER:

¶130

Writ petition No.26479 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶131

.to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in conducting Height AND Chest measurement as part of Physical Measurement with an inaccurate Digital Height and Chest Measuring machine which gives every time a different reading and resulted in disqualifying of the petitioners who are fully qualified and most of them had qualified with more height and chest in earlier recruitment of 2019 conducted by the same respondent board as illegal arbitrary discriminatory against principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14 16 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently Direct the 2nd Respondent to Retake the height and chest of the Petitioner herein forthwith with MANUAL measuring system and allow the Petitioners herein to participate in the further selection process in the interest of justice...."

¶132

Writ petition No.26653 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶133

¶134

vs,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶135

"... to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in conducting Height and Chest measurement as part of Physical Measurement with an inaccurate Digital Height and Chest Measuring machine for Notification R. C. No.163/ SLRPB/RECT-1 / 2023, Dt. 28.11.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory against principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently Direct the^2,td Respondent to undertake the height and chest measurements MANUALLY by allowing the Petitioners to participate in the further selection process in the interest of justice and to pass...."

¶136

Since the relief claimed in both the petitions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide both the writ petitions by common order.

¶137

. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, in the year 2018 have applied for the post of SCT SI (civil) as per notification R. C . No. 216 / SLRPB / RECT-1/2O18, dated 01.10.2018 of Chairman SLRPB Andhra Pradesh, and were qualified in prelims and physical measurements but were not given job as they did not secure merit marks in main exams. Thereafter, in the year 2022, a notification dated 28.11.2O22 was issued for recruiting SCT Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh

¶138

¶139

vs,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 012023 (SLRPB, AP) in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.153 of Home (Services.IV) Department dated 20th October, 2022. The aforesaid notification was issued specifying important details, including the application procedure, examination dates eligibility criteria and also recruitment process which involves multiple stages like the preliminary written test, physical measurement tests, physical efficiency test and subsequent stages.

¶140

In pursuance of the notification dated 28.11.2022, the petitioners have applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), and they underwent physical measurement test in the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police at Eluru, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool and Guntur, but, however, their candidature was rejected on the ground that they had less height and chest measurements than the prescribed figures. As such, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal to the respondents for retaking the measurements by way of manual measurements, but, in spite of the same, the measurements were once again calculated using digital process, which led to their disqualification. As per the notification, a candidate's height shall not be less than 167.6 c.m.s, and the main grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent has conducted height and chest measurement as part of physical

¶141

¶142

vS,J W'.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶143

measurement with an inaccurate digital height measuring machine which gives a different reading each time and has resulted in disqualification of the petitioners though they were qualified in the earlier recruitment of the year 2018 conducted by the same respondent board. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners made a representation to the D.I.G., and Chairman of Police Recruitment narrating the petitioners' grievance, but, till date no action has been initiated. The petitioners also made representations to the 2nd respondent seeking to retake the measurement with manual measures, but of no avail. Hence, the writ petition.

¶144

Learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed written instructions received from the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Mangalagiri, Guntur District vide Rc. No.61 / SLPRB / Legal-I / 2023 dated 9.10.2023, wherein it is specifically contended that there is a provision for appeal for re-measurement of height and chest. All those candidates who were disqualified in PMT were given second chance for appeal on their request on the same day. The appeal board has conducted re-measurement by taking utmost care in re-measuring the height of all the appellate candidates including the petitioners. Before commencement of PMT/PET on 24.08.2023, the digital measuring equipments were examined by the Assistant

¶145

¶146

vs,J W.P.Nos.26d79 and 26653 of 2023 Controller, Legal Metrology and found that they are in good working condition. Total 46,078 candidates have attended the PMT in all Ranges, their heights and chests were digitally measured, but no one raised any objection against the digital measurement and its accuracy. The petitioners herein after being disqualified in PMT have raised objections on digital measurement, which is not appreciable. Even though one more opportunity was given to the petitioners to re-measure their height and chest, they did not qualify. At this stage, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise objection with regard to digital measurements that are being used for PMT.

¶147

Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services -I.

¶148

Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that when petitioner No.l appeared for PMT in pursuance of the notification R.C.No.216/SLRPB/RECT-1/2018 dated 01.10.2018, his height was measured as 167.8 cros, however, he was not selected as he did not secure merit marks in the main exam, but when he appeared for PMT in pursuance of the present notification, his height was measured as 166.9 cros initially and the same was shown as 167.5 cros on the same day when he preferred appeal,

¶149

¶150

vS,J N.N.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶151

accordingly his candidature was rejected, which creates a doubt on the accuracy of digital measurement machine.

¶152

He would further contend that without there being a physical measurement, the digital calculations are proved as wrong in the earlier occasions as well and the veracity of the digital meters is a disputed question in the absence of any recognized expert's authentication, requested to direct the respondents to retake measurement of the height and chest of the petitioners with "Manual" measuring system.

¶153

Learned Government Pleader for Services — I would contend that the Selection Board has been using digital measurement equipments for the past 10 years for Physical Measurements Test (PMT), but no one raised any objection. In fact, the petitioners also did not raise any objection as to the use of digital measurement equipment at the first instance, but when they were disqualified in PMT, they came up with the new version that the digital measurements are not accurate and requested the authorities to take their measurements manually. PMT was conducted in the month of August, 2023, but the petitioners approached this Court immediately after issuing hall tickets to the qualified candidates for the main examination. When a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the

¶154

vs,.l W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶155

examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise.

¶156

He would further contend that the selection process almost came to an end and, at this stage, the petitioners cannot be permitted to take new plea that manual equipment has to be used for taking their measurement, without there being any protest at the first instance. In a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, whatsoever may be the genuineness of the grievance, at the end of recruitment process, as in the present case, the final exam will be conducted on 14.10.2023 and 15.10.2023, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶157

In the present facts of the case, notification R. C. No.163 /SLRPB / RECT-1 / 2023 was issued on 26.11.2022. Physical Measurement Tests were conducted at Eluru, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool and Guntur from 25.08.2023 to 25.09.2023. The respondents took measurements by way of digital process. On such physical examination, the respondents rejected the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that their height is not to the standards prescribed in the notification. When the petitioners appeared for physical measurement test in pursuance of the earlier notification issued vide R.C. No.216/ SLRPB / RECT-1 / 2018, dated 01.10.2018, they

¶158

¶159

vs,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶160

were qualified in the physical measurements test, but this time their candidature was rejected due to lack of sufficient height.

¶161

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on "Asha Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration)", wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

¶162

"Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the decision making process and the decision taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such an action can normally be termed as 'arbitrary'. Where the process of decision making is followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of arbitrariness, of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration within the scope of judicial review. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the pre-requisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision making process of the State has also become an essential part of our Administrative law.

¶163

The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which 'may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logical. The principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case."

¶164

On the strength of the law laid down in the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

¶165

1 (2011) lOSCC86

¶166

¶167

vs,J '.P.vos.2G479 and 26653 of 2023 Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the pre-requisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision making process of the State has also become an essential part of our Administrative law. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which 'may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances.

¶168

Learned Government Pleader for Services - I relied on "Sadananda Halo Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh2" wherein, it was held as under:

¶169

"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100] The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [ 1986 Supp SCC 285], where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise."

¶170

Singh v. State of U.P.3" the Apex Court held as follows:

¶171

"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the

¶172

2 (2008) 4 SCC 619

¶173

' (2018) 2 SCC 357

¶174

¶175

vs,J

¶176

W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶177

complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or offending question.

¶178

It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination—whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

¶179

The law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgments is not in dispute, but they are not applicable to the present facts of the case.

¶180

¶181

vs,j

¶182

w.P.\os.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶183

The method of Physical Measurements Test (PMT) described in the notification is as follows:

¶184

"B) PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS TEST (PMT): Candidate who qualifies in the Preliminary Written Test has to undergo Physical Measurements Test and should meet the following requirements:

¶185

i. MEN: For the Post Code Nos. 11 and 13:

¶186

a) Height: Must not be less than 167.6 centimeters.

¶187

b) Chest: Must not be less than 86.3 centimetres round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5 centimetres.

¶188

ii. WOMEN: For the Post Code No. 11:

¶189

a) Height: Must not be less than 152.5 centimeters.

¶190

b) Weight: Must not be less than 40 Kgs.

¶191

NOTE: Provided that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Aboriginal Tribes in the Agency areas of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari and West Godavari districts should meet the following requirements

¶192

On perusal of the notification, it appears that physical measurements test will be conducted to the candidates, but the mode of taking physical measurements was not specified in the notification i.e. use of manual scale or digital equipment. In the present facts of the case, if the case of petitioner No.l is taken into consideration, the height of petitioner No.l was recorded as 167.8 cros when he appeared for the selection in pursuance of the notification issued in 2018 and he was qualified in PMT in 2018. In general, the height of a person does not change after sometime, but the height of petitioner No.l was

¶193

¶194

vS,J w.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶195

recorded as 166.9 cros when he appeared for PMT on 26.08.2023, and when he made an appeal to retake his measurements, his height was recorded as 167.5 ems. The above measurements were taken by using digital machine. There is a variation in measurements taken on different point of times. The same issue is prevailing in case of other petitioners also. Then, the petitioners raised an objection as to the usage of digital equipment and requested the authorities to take measurements manually, but the respondents failed to consider the request of the petitioners.

¶196

If the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services - I that the selection board has been using digital equipment for the past 10 years for conducting physical measurements test (PMT) is accepted; the question of disqualifying them now in the year 2023 does not arise when they were qualified in the year 2018 using the same digital equipment.

¶197

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the similar circumstances, the High Court of Telangana in "L.Mahesh Vs. State of Telangana (W.P.No.46872 of 2022 and batch)" passed the following order.

¶198

"7. In view of the submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to give one-time opportunity to all the writ petitioners in the above writ petitions and to all the

¶199

¶200

vS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

¶201

candidates whose height is recorded less than l.Scm and accordingly the respondents are directed to fix up an appropriate date by giving the said information through widely circulated/recognised electronic and print media to avail such opportunity to measure such candidates' heights manually and if found eligible to allow them for the next level of examination, if necessary by involving the experts measuring the height for calculating the physical height of the candidates."

¶202

is evident from the material filed by the petitioners and the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader for Services-1, there are some discrepancies with regard to the height of the petitioners and it is also evident from the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader for Services-1 that only some petitioners have preferred appeal. In view of the discrepancies that occurred while measuring height by digital process and as the suspicion has been arisen with regard to the physical qualification of the height, and with a view to afford one more opportunity to the petitioners as the present notification was released after a duration of four years, I deem it appropriate to grant the relief to the petitioners as prayed.

¶203

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed directing Y the respondents to fix up an appropriate date by duly intimating the same to the petitioners and measure the heights of the petitioners manually, if necessary by involving the experts measuring the height for calculating the physical height of the petitioners and if found eligible to allow them for the next level

¶204

¶205

vs,J w.P.Nosa6479 and 26653 of 2023 of examination. The said process of physical measurements test shall be completed within a period of three days from today.

¶206

It is made clear that the decision taken by the respondents in this aspect shall be final and will not give any room for any further litigation unless permitted by law.

¶207

However, the respondents are at liberty to conduct the examinations to the eligible candidates as per schedule on 14.10.2023 and 15.10.2023. Further, the respondents are directed to declare the final results of all the eligible candidates at a time including the petitioners herein, if found eligible, after completion of the above said process.

¶208

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶209

Sd!-^{S.SRINIVASAPRASAD}

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

!!TRUE COPY!!

SECTION OFFICER /

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,} Secretariat, Velagapudi,^{Amaravathi, Guntur District.} 2. The Chairman,^{State Level Police Recruitment Board of Andhra Pradesh,} Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶214

The Director^{General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh,} Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶215

One CC to Sri^{Jada Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]} 5. Two CCs to^{GP for Services - I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]}

¶216

Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/10/2023

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.26479 & 26653 of 2023

¶222

.GOVRT OF
NI)11
S -1A
ci
1 i NOV 2023
* o Curren t Sectlo n ,& m
FS'~4TCHEo *

¶223

ALLOWING THE BOTH WP's WITHOUT COSTS

Talari Meghanath, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talari Meghanath, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Muni Velu M Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Neeraja, Vs The Union Ministry of Steel

Velivela Sai Sree Vs the State of Ap

Sri Mudiyam Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of Andrha Pradesh

Yaddanapudi Surya Narayana Sarma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Lakshmi Narayana Vs the State of Ap