Allowed

Mr. Mardansha S Magadi v. Union of India

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2026WP/28457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A candidate rejected from CRPF Constable (GD) recruitment for being under the 170 cm minimum height challenged the PST rejection slip. The court remitted the matter for reconsideration of a claimed 2 cm relaxation without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

PST Rejection Slip dated 25.08.2025 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.3 for afresh reconsideration within two weeks from 30.04.2026.

Mr. Mardansha S Magadi Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23037 WP No. 28457 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28457 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MARDANSHA S. MAGADI S/O LATE SUBANSAB AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT MELLEGATTI, POST KUNIMELLIHALLI, SAVANUR TQ., HAVERI DT – 581 202.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF PERSONAL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, BLOCK NO.12, CENTRAL OFFICE COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 003 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOMINATED FOR CENTRE THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER (PO)., CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RECRUITMENT-2025, HELD ON 28-08-2025. REP.BY MR.MANDEV SINGH BHULLER 21C 116 BN BSF, PRESIDING OFFICER PET/PST BOARD CT/GD SSC-2025, OFFICE AT BSF BANGALORE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:23037 WP No. 28457 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BN HQ 142 BN BSF, KARAHALLI, POST KARAHALLI, BANGALORE, NORTH STATE – 562 110.

¶21

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 21C 116 BN BSF, PRESIDING OFFICER PET/PST BOARD CT/GD SSC-2025, HELD ON 28-08-2025. AT-BSF BANGALORE, BN HQ 142 BN BSF, KARAHALLI, POST KARAHALLI, BANGALORE, NORTH STATE, KARNATAKA - 562 110.

¶22

THE SUPERINTENDENT / APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOMINATED FOR CENTRE THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER (PO) CRPF RECRUITMENT-2025 REP. BY MR. MANDEV SINGH BHULLER'S SUPERIOR OFFICER, 21C 116 BN BSF, PRESIDING OFFICER PET/PST BOARD CT/GD SSC-2025, OFFICE: BSF BANGALORE, BN HQ 142 BN BSF KARAHALLI, POST KARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 562 110.

¶23

DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶24

INSPECTOR GENERAL (SOUTHERN ZONE), CRPF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. RESHMA K.THAMMAIAH, CGC)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PST REJECTION SLIP DATED 25.08.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R3 AND ETC.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:23037 WP No. 28457 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶35

a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned PST Rejection Slip dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by the 3^rd Respondent;

¶36

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Constable (General Duty) in CRPF Recruitment-2024-25, in the light of his representations (Annexures – J & K), sports quota entitlement, and medical certificate (Annexure-G);

¶37

c) Pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned CGC for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and perused the material on record.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner had applied to the post of Constable- (General Duty) in CRPF under Category 2B with horizontal reservation OBC with sports quota. The petitioner having cleared the written examination, the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:23037 WP No. 28457 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ground that his height was 168.3 c.m., which was lesser than the minimum cut-off height of 170 c.m. and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Circular, standing orders etc., issued by the respondents themselves, it is permissible to relax the minimum cut-off stipulated height of 170 c.m., by 2 centimeters as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Surinder Sharma Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.3072/1999 dated 19.03.1999 and as such, the impugned rejection order deserves to be set aside.

¶45

Per contra, learned CGC for the respondents would place reliance upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri . Sreeni S Vs. Regional Director KKR and others in WP.No.28643/2025 dated 03.02.2026 in order to contend that it is not permissible to relax the minimum requirement of height of 170 c.ms., as stipulated in the recruitment notification and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23037 WP No. 28457 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In order to ascertain the actual height of the petitioner, this Court directed the Dispensary of High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore to conduct a height examination / test of the petitioner and the report indicates that his height is 169.3 c.ms., as per manual examination and 169.1 c.ms., as per RFID.

¶49

It follows there from that the question as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to request the respondents to relax the minimum cut-off height by 2 centimeters would have to be decided by the respondents, in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order (PST Rejection Slip) at Annexure – A and remit the matter back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame.

¶50

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:23037 WP No. 28457 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

(ii) The impugned order (PST Rejection Slip) at Annexure – A dated 25.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside.

¶57

(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law.

¶58

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3 on 30.04.2026.

¶59

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents, judgments, etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.3, who shall also provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from 30.04.2026.

¶60

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

¶62

Mr. Mardansha S Magadi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mardansha S Magadi v. Union of India

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

Sri Rangaswamy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G S Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K L Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M J Manjunatha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Sowmya a N Vs the General Manager

Smt Hemalatha B R Vs State of Karnataka