Kayum Ali Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.

¶11

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶12

4:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066.

¶13

5:THE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

PST/PET RECRUITMENT BOARD CRPF CAMPUS GROUP CENTRE CRPF GUWAHATI AMERIGOG GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781023

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A S ALI, MR. K MIRA,MR. S A B KHABIR,MR S HUSSAIN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

15.09.2025

¶21

Heard Mr. S.A.B. Khabir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Baruah, learned CGC for the respondents.

¶22

2. The brief fact of this case is that petitioner applied and participated in the recruitment process for the CAPF recruitment for the year 2025. According to the petitioner, his height is 165.5 CM, however in the physical test examination, his height was recorded as 164.7 CM and he was therefore disqualified as the minimum height required for Male candidate is 165 CM.

¶23

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to this recruitment, he had appeared for two other examination where his height was recorded as 165.5 CM. That apart, a certificate of physical measurement issued by the Superintendent, Barpeta Civil Hospital, Kalgachia, Barpeta in favour of the writ petitioner certifies that his height is 165.5 CM. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the authorities wrongly rejected the petitioner on the ground of height by wrongly recording his height as below 165 CM. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the copy is not

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

enclosed to the writ petition, there is an averment in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition that he had preferred a written appeal before the Presiding Officer of the Recruitment Board, namely, respondent No. 5. However, no order has been passed in the appeal nor have the authorities considered his case and sent him for re-examination or re-verification of his height. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar issue came to be disposed of by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and such order(s) are also enclosed to the writ petition.

¶26

4. Ms. S Baruah, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents submits that in all the other matters, the Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner therein to file appeal before the appellate authority However, in the present case, he has already filed an appeal and the status of the present appeal is not known. She submits that she may be permitted to complete her instructions on that.

¶27

5. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Upon careful perusal of the writ petition and on upon due consideration of the submissions made, it is seen that the prayer of the petitioner is that his height which was measured to be 165.5 CM by the Superintendent of Barpeta Civil Hospital, Kalgachia, Barpeta by issuing a certificate dated 26.08.2025 is the correct height and the rejection of his candidature by the respondent authorities that his height is below the specified height in the advertisement namely 165 CM is not correct. The petitioner also claimed to have submitted a written appeal before the appellate authority which according to the petitioner has not been disposed of.

¶28

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be met if the writ petition is disposed at this stage by directing the respondent authorities more particularly respondent No. 5 to expeditiously consider the appeal stated to have been filed by the writ petitioner

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

and pass appropriate order(s) thereon. If in the meantime, the appeal has already been considered and order(s) have been passed then a copy of the said order be served on the writ petitioner. This exercise be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Kayum Ali v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kayum Ali v. the Union of India and 4 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

Ankur Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Hemanta Bora Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

G 5002134M Ex Rfn Gd Satish Kumar Vs Union of India

Biswa Dev Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Manash Jyoti Borgohain Vs Dr Ravi Kota

Kamal Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.