Allowed¶22

Kuldip Prasad v. the Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Jun 2026WPA/570/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 570 of 2025, High Court at Calcutta, Amrita Sinha, J., decided 23.06.2026. Rounding off of height in CAPF Constable recruitment physical standard test: height of 169.5 cm to be read as 170 cm per medical guidelines (fraction of 0.5 cm ignored, rounded to next higher cm); non-application held inadvertent and erroneous; delay/laches objection rejected where illegality apparent from record; writ petition allowed with consequential recruitment directions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat the petitioner's height as 170 cm and to take necessary consequential steps for his recruitment to the post of Constable in CAPFs without any further delay. ¶22

Kuldip Prasad Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to treat the petitioner's height as 170 cm and to take necessary consequential steps for his recruitment to the post of Constable in CAPFs without any further delay.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the principle of rounding off prescribed in the medical guidelines ought to be applied to the petitioner's recorded height of 169.5 cm so as to treat him as eligible in the physical standard test. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The respondent authority inadvertently and erroneously failed to apply the rounding-off principle prescribed in the medical guidelines (fraction of 0.5 cm ignored and rounded off to the next higher cm); applied to the petitioner's recorded height of 169.5 cm, his height would be 170 cm, the minimum required to qualify in the physical standard test.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Had the rounding-off principle been applied, the petitioner would have been treated as qualified with a recorded height of 170 cm; his failure to proceed to the next level was attributable to the error of the respondents.

¶19

Key takeaways

The respondents' objection of delay in filing the writ petition cannot be accepted, since the illegality in not applying the rounding-off principle is apparent from the records.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CAPF recruitment 2024 — Petitioner disqualified in Physical Standard Test, height recorded 169.5 cm — Medical guidelines prescribe that a fraction of 0.5 cm in measured height be ignored and rounded off to the next higher cm — Failure of respondent authority to apply rounding off held inadvertent and erroneous; petitioner's height would round off to 170 cm, the minimum required to qualify — Objection of delay in filing the writ petition (January 2025) rejected as the illegality is apparent from records — Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to treat petitioner's height as 170 cm and to take consequential steps for his recruitment as Constable in CAPFs without further delay (Amrita Sinha, J.).

¶1

S/L 5 23.06.2026 Court No.18 SD

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

¶3

WPA 570 of 2025

¶4

Kuldip Prasad Vs.

¶5

Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. (VC)

¶7

Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Mandal

¶8

… for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Garima Raijada

¶10

… for the Union of India.

¶11

The petitioner participated in the recruitment process of CAPFs in the year 2024. He stood disqualified in the physical standard test on account of deficiency in height. His height was recorded as 169.5 cm.

¶12

Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that as per the medical guidelines, the principle of rounding off ought to be applied by the authority.

¶13

Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to apply the principle of rounding off and treat the petitioner as eligible in the physical standard test.

¶14

Learned advocate representing the respondents submits that the recruitment process for the year 2024 is long over. The petitioner has approached the Court at a delayed point of time by filing the writ petition in January 2025.

¶15

Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the documents

¶16

¶17

annexed to the writ petition, it appears that indeed the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the year 2024 and was found disqualified on account of deficiency in height in the physical standard test.

¶18

The respondent authority inadvertently and erroneously did not apply the principle of rounding off as prescribed in the medical guidelines. The medical guidelines prescribe that while measuring height, fraction of 0.5 cm will be ignored and rounded off to the next higher cm. In the instant case, the height of the petitioner was recorded 169.5 cm and if the principle of rounding off is allowed, the petitioner’s height will be 170 cm which is the minimum height required for qualifying in the physical standard test.

¶19

Had the principle of rounding off been applied, then the petitioner could have been treated as qualified, as his height would have been recorded as 170 cm. It is for the error on the part of the respondents that the petitioner could not proceed to the next level.

¶20

The submission of the respondents that the writ petition has been filed at a delayed point of time cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the illegality on the part of the respondent in not applying the principle of rounding off is apparent from records.

¶21

¶22

In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

¶23

The respondents are direct to treat the height of the petitioner as 170 cm.

¶24

Further necessary consequential steps shall be taken by the respondent authorities in connection with the recruitment of the petitioner in the post of Constable in CAPFs without any further delay.

¶25

Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶26

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶27

(Amrita Sinha, J.)

Kuldip Prasad v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldip Prasad v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arijit Ghosh Vs Durgapur Projects Limited and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Layek Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sanowaj Sekh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Lakha Hari and Anr. Vs Eastern Coalfields Limtied and Ors.

Rekha Mukherjee and Anr. Vs Indian Red Cross Society West Bengal State Branch and Anr.

Raju Dey Vs Union of India and Ors.