After Later 157-Cm Reading, CAT Orders Fresh Height Measurement For Woman Rejected From Delhi Police Constable Recruitment

The applicant, an EWS female candidate, was declared unsuccessful at the PE&MT for Constable (Executive) Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2025, on 20 August 2026, allegedly because her height was below the prescribed minimum of 157 cm.

She challenged the measurement, stating that she had not been given the recorded measurement or the relevant measurement and rejection records.

She relied on a height measurement of 157 cm at a Delhi Police Head Constable PE&MT on 30 September 2026, and on an earlier measurement of 157 cm in a CAPF examination, to question the accuracy of the first measurement.

After seeking fresh measurement and preservation of the relevant records from the Commissioner of Police, she applied to the Tribunal for relief.

The respondents accepted notice; their counsel sought four weeks to file a reply, but the Tribunal heard the parties and disposed of the application by directions.

Whether the disputed height measurement justified directing a fresh measurement of the applicant’s height in accordance with the applicable rules and the methodology used for other candidates.

Whether, depending on the fresh measurement, the applicant should be permitted to undertake the PE&MT and be considered further in the recruitment process.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction over the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as stated in the order.

It directed that the applicant’s height be measured strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions governing the subject and the methodology adopted for other candidates in the same recruitment.

The applicant relied on Ashok Kumar Saini v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 3670/2024, concerning fresh examination of height by a Government Medical Board; however, the Tribunal’s order does not expressly adopt that precedent as the basis of its directions.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s challenge to the initial measurement alongside her subsequent measurement at the same prescribed height in another Delhi Police recruitment process.

Without determining that the original measurement was wrong, it concluded that the dispute should be resolved through a fresh measurement conducted under the applicable rules and using the methodology applied to other candidates.

It made the applicant’s further participation conditional on the result of that measurement and her success in the PE&MT.

If she met the height standard, the respondents were to conduct her PE&MT; depending on its outcome, they were to take the necessary consequential action concerning her participation in the selection process.

The directions were to be complied with within three weeks, and the application was disposed of without an order as to costs.