Manchala Ramana, Vs Union of India

Petrtron Under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner (hall ticket No. 860301 2451) by not extending the benefit of relaxation to the petitioner as contemplated in clause 2(d) of revised uniform gurdelines daled 201051201 5 as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutiona I and in violation of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndra and consequently direct the

¶19

respondents to declare the petitioner as eligible for Detai ( d tvledical Examtnatio;r (DME) by setting aside the PST rejection slip dated 26la9r2)25

¶20

l.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the ircur.nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High C:r rrt nray be pleased t,.r suspend the PST rejectron slip dated 2610812025 and p:rmit the petrtioner to participate in Detailed l.4edical Examination (DIVE) rnd further selectiorl procedures, pending the drsposal of main writ petition

¶22

|.A.NO:2 OF 2025

¶23

Between

¶24

Union of lndia. through its Secretary. lvlinistry of Honr,: Affairs (Dept of Personnel and trarnrng) North Block. Central Secretar I t New Delhi.

¶25

The Staff Selection Commission, Commercial Karmik ]lock No 12, CGO complex, Lodhi road, New Delhi -^'1 10003.

¶26

The Director General, CRPF (Recruitment branch), Err t Block 07, Level 4, Sector 1, R.K. Puranr. New Delhi - 110066.

¶27

The Deputy Commandant, Mernber- 1, PET/PST, boa J (CT/GD-2025), At CISF unit BHEL, Hyderabad

¶28

.....PETITIC,I^{lERS/RESPONDENTS}

¶29

AND

¶30

Putti Chaitanya,, S/o Putti Shekar, aged20 years, Occ ; I tudent, R/o 3-98, Old lrsulapuram, Bayyaram [/andal, Mahabu bab ad District.

¶31

.....RESF,( )NDENT/PETITIONER

¶32

Petition Under Sectron 151 CPC prayrng that in the : 'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hrgh Co- 1 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 23- 1 0-2025 in WP.No 31111 of 2025.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI G.RAVI CHANDRA SEKII \R

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : SRI N.BHUJANGA RA( , DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI G.VENKATESHVARLU,^CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL

¶36

W.P.NO: 31775 OF 2025

¶37

Between:

¶38

ltlanchala Ramana, S/o M. Thirupathi, aged 22 yea.S, occ. student Rlo 1 12011 Shanagar. Rarnadugu lrilandal, Karimnagar District.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

Union of lndia, through its Secretary, [t/rnistry of Home Affairs^(Dept.of Personnel and training) North Block, Central Secretariat, New^Delhi.

¶42

The Staff Selection Commission,. Commercial Karmik,^{BlockNo'12, CGO} complex, Lodhi road, New Delhi -¹ 10003.

¶43

3 The Director General,, CRPF (Recruitment branch),^{East Block07, Level 4,} Sector 1 . R.K. Puram, New Delhi^{- 1} 10066.

¶44

The Deputy Commandant, IVlember^-1 , PET/PST board^{(CT/GD-2025),At} CISF unit, BHEL, Hyderabad.

¶45

.....RESPONDENTS

¶46

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affrdavrt filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the^{nature of} wnt of mandamus declaring the action of respondents^{in rejecting the candidature} of the petitioner (hall ticket No 8604000203) by^{not extending the benefitof} relaxation to the petitioner as contemplated in clause^2(d) of^{reviseduniform} guidelines dated 20-05-2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstrtutiona I and in^violation of articles 14 and 2'l of the Constitutton of lndia and^{consequently directthe} respondents to declare the petitioner as eligible for Detailed^{MedicalExamination} (Dlr/E) by settrng asrde the rejection of the petitioner from PST/PET^examination daled 23-08-2025

¶47

[.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶48

Petition Under Sectron 151 CPC^praying that in^{the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pleasedto direct} the respondents to permit the^petitioner to^{participatein Detailedtr4edical} Examination (DME) and further selection^{procedures pertainingto the selections} for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police^{Forces (CAPFs)and SSF,} Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and sepoy in^{Narcotics ControlBureau} Examination - 2025,^pending the disposal of main^{writ petition.}

¶49

|.A.NO:2 OF 2025

¶50

Between:

¶51

'1 . Union of lndia, through its Secretary. Ministry of Horne Affairs (Dept of Personnel and training) North Block. Central Secreta rrt, New Delhi.

¶52

2 The Staff Selection Commission,, Commercial Karrni < Block No¹ 2, CGO complex, Lodhi road New Delhi - 1 10003.

¶53

The Director General,, CRPF (Recruitment branch), I rst Block 07, Level 4, Sector 1 RK Pr-rrarn New Delhi 110066.

¶54

4 The Deputy Commandant, firlember -1, PET/PSf boar I (C'f/GD-2025), At CISF unit, BHEL, Hyderabad

¶55

.....PETITI )NERS/RESPONDENT

¶56

AND

¶57

Manchala Ramana, S/o lV Thirupathi, aged 22 years. ctc < student, Rlo 1-12011 . Shanagar, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶58

.....RES F sNDENT/PETITIONER

¶59

Petition Under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the , rrcumstances stated irt the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High O'r rrt nray be pleased tO vacate the interrm order dated 23- 1 0-2025,in WP. No.31'/ 7 : of 2025.

¶60

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI G.RAVI CHANDRA SEh I AR

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI N.BHUJANGA R,\ ), DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI G.VENKAT: SHVARLU, CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL

¶63

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶64

I

¶65

SK,J

¶66

\tr . P. Nos.3l I l7 and 3 I 7 75 of 20.'r

¶67

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶68

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶69

WRIT PETITION Nos.3l117 and 31775 of 2025

Date:O5.02.2026

Between

W.P.No.31LL7 of 2025

Putti Chaitanyzr

And

" '^Petitioner'

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and othcrs.

¶77

..Respondents

¶78

COMMON ORDER:

¶79

As the similar issue is invoived in both these writ

¶80

petitions, thcy art: being disposcd of by this comnton order

¶81

Heard Sri Ra-,,i Chandrasekhar, learned counsel fbr the petitioners and Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India appcaring lor the respondent No.1 and Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the writ petitions.

¶82

Both these writ petitions are hled questioning the action of the rcspondents rn rcjecting the candidature of

¶83

2

¶84

S Ii,.I W.P.\os.. I 7 arJ l17;5 ot )o2.'

¶85

the petitioners by not extending the benefit o^'relaxation as contemplated in Clause 2(d) of Revised Unil;-m Guidelines datecl 20.05.2015 as illegal and arbitrary an: consequcntly direct the respondents to declare the petit io crs as eligiltle for Detailed Meclical Examination (DMIi) tr., sctting aside the PST rejectior-r slips datcd 26.08.2025 rrr cl 23.08.2025 respectively

¶86

Learned Counsel for thc petitioners sr_rl mii.s that the same rssue \ras considered b1. the High Corrr t o[..ludicature at Bombay in W.P.Nos.12664 and 1267 1 . 2025 clated 01.10.2025, whercin it was held in para Nc):i l8 and l9 as under;

¶87

" 18. Clar-rse 2(d) of the Said Guidelines, ,,vh r, L providcs [or rounding off of the height to the next higher ccnti,r -'ter^rvouldbe applicatrle at the stage of Physical Standard Test. Th,: I r nefit confcrrcd by the Said Guidelines was requircd to I;e extenrlcd lr i-re petitio ners at the Physical Standard Test sragc. Disqualifying rt < petitioners zrt the stage of Physical St:rndarcl Test on account o[ tlr,r r heigl'rt bcing 164.7 cms and 164.6 cms, respectively, is illegal and rr I itrarw. Wrt are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are cntitl,, to rl're beneht of hcight rela-xation in terms of Clause 2(d) of the S: i 1 (iuidelincs b1' rounding off the fraction of the height to the next Jrighc^- lentimeter.

¶88

In view of the above. both the Writ petitiorr r are allowr.d in terms of prayer Clause (a). Petitioners are herebv grr, t l beneht ol- thc relaxation in terms of Clause 2{d) of the Said Guirlelrnc.s corsequt'nt11'

¶89

3

¶90

sl(,J W.P.Nos.3l I l7 aod 31775 ot 2025

¶91

respondents are directed to consider the height of the petitioner in W.P.No.12664 of 2025 rvhich is 164.7 cms to be 165 cms and thc height of thc pctitioner in W.P.No.1267 | of 2O2S which is 164.6 cms to be 165 cms, therebv declaring both the pctitioncrs eligible for thc Detailed Medical Examinarion".

¶92

Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leavc to Appeat (C) Nos.38692-38694 of 2025 dated 16.01.2026 and in view of the same, thc respondents have to cotlsider the case of thc petitioners as per the directions issr-rccl by the High Court of Bombay in W.P.Nos. 12664 arrd 1267 I ot 2025 clated 0 1.1O.2025.

¶93

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.Nos. 12664 and 12671 of 2025 dated 01.1O.2O25 and upholding the said order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.38692-38694 of 2025

¶94

dated 16.O1 .2026 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶95

-

¶96

4

¶97

SI(..J W.l'},Nos.il 7 alld 31775 ol 2025

¶98

In vieu, of the said submissions, I r th the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the PS'l / I)tr'f rejection slips dated'26.Oa.2025 and 23.08.2025 oi,lLc pctitioners r-cspectively nnd the respondents are direcre ( ro t,rtend Lhc benefit of relaxation to the petitioncrs as c( I t.i:n'rplated in Clause 2(dl of Revised Uniforrl (]uidelines

¶99

dated 2O.05.2015 arrd declare the petitioners r ligible for tl're Detailed Medical Examination. No ordcr as Lo ( osts

¶100