Earlier Height Clearance Isn’t a “Litmus Test” for Constable Applicants, Tamil Nadu HC Says in Rejecting Fresh Measurement Appeals

The appellants had participated in recruitment for Grade II Police Constable posts but were disqualified after their height measurements failed to meet the required standard.

They sought remeasurement in separate writ petitions, which were dismissed on the basis that the Board’s electronic measurement process was reliable.

In these appeals, they argued that remeasurement was warranted, including because some had met the height requirement in an earlier recruitment process.

The Board stated that measurements were electronically recorded and videographed, and that it would provide measurement and calibration details on request.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or binding precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applies the principle that a court will not direct a recruitment authority to repeat a measurement process merely on a claim of possible error where measurements were taken electronically and videographed, and no mala fides are alleged.

A candidate’s measurement in an earlier recruitment process is not conclusive proof of their height in a later process.

The appellants referred to a Division Bench decision concerning CRPF recruitment, but the judgment does not identify or apply that decision.

The Court accepted that the present measurements were made electronically and that the process was videographed; the appellants did not allege mala fides in the selection process.

It rejected the earlier recruitment measurements as a “litmus test” of the appellants’ height in the present process.

Given the scale of the recruitment—more than 3,600 vacancies—the Court declined to order a fresh measurement process that would delay selection.

It considered that any specific concern about calibration or a discrepancy could be addressed by obtaining the measurement details and seeking appropriate relief.

The appellants were granted liberty to verify the height details recorded during selection and to approach the Court for appropriate relief if they found a discrepancy.

No costs were ordered, and the connected applications were closed.