CAT - ['Delhi']Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Delhi Tribunal Orders Fresh Height Test For Constable Candidate Marked 168.9 Cm, After Hospital Report Put Him At 170.2 Cm

Rahulv.HOME AFFAIRS

Delhi Tribunal Orders Fresh Height Test For Constable Candidate Marked 168.9 Cm, After Hospital Report Put Him At 170.2 Cm. Rahul vs HOME AFFAIRS. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant’s height should be measured afresh in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and the methodology used for other candidates.

The court held

The Tribunal disposed of the application by directing the respondents to arrange a fresh height measurement and, depending on its result, take consequential action regarding the applicant’s participation in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test within one week.

It also directed

If the applicant meets the height criterion and passes that test, he is entitled to appointment, subject to satisfying all other eligibility conditions.

The directions were to be complied with within three weeks of receipt of the order; there was no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant, a candidate for Constable (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police Examination, 2025, was disqualified for not meeting the minimum height requirement of 170 cm. His height was recorded as 168.90 cm initially and 169 cm on appeal; a subsequent medical certificate from Civil Hospital, Uchana, recorded his height as 170.2 cm.

p. 2

He filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to set aside the disqualification and consequential appointment.

p. 2

He relied on an earlier Tribunal order granting similar relief in Naresh Kumar v. SSC & Ors., O.A. No. 3989/2026.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant’s height should be measured afresh in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and the methodology used for other candidates.

pp. 2–3

ii.2. Whether, if found to meet the height requirement and to qualify in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, the applicant should receive consequential consideration for appointment.

p. 3

03Law Applied

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters.

p. 2

The Tribunal directed that height be measured afresh in accordance with the governing rules and instructions and using the methodology adopted for other candidates.

p. 3

It relied on its order in Naresh Kumar v. SSC & Ors., O.A. No. 3989/2026, which had granted similar relief.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The conflicting height records—below the required standard at the selection measurement and above it in the subsequent medical certificate—led the Tribunal to consider fresh measurement appropriate.

p. 2

Rather than decide the applicant’s eligibility on the competing measurements, it directed measurement at an institution selected by the respondents, under the applicable rules and the methodology used for other candidates. The outcome would determine the applicant’s further participation in the selection process.

p. 3

05Holding

The Tribunal disposed of the application by directing the respondents to arrange a fresh height measurement and, depending on its result, take consequential action regarding the applicant’s participation in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test within one week.

p. 3

If the applicant meets the height criterion and passes that test, he is entitled to appointment, subject to satisfying all other eligibility conditions.

p. 3

The directions were to be complied with within three weeks of receipt of the order; there was no order as to costs.

pp. 3–4
CAT - ['Delhi']

Original Court PDF

RahulvsHOME AFFAIRS

CAT - ['Delhi'] · October 14, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment