Measurement by separate authorities cannot be used to challenge recruitment physical measurement test results.

The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) with the Airports Authority of India (AAI).

After clearing the Computer Based Test, he appeared for the Physical Measurement Test (PMT) on April 19, 2026.

Under the recruitment norms, a candidate requires a normal chest measurement of 81 cm and a minimum expansion of 5 cm, with up to three recorded attempts.

The petitioner was orally informed of his disqualification for failing to meet these standards.

He alleged that he was not provided the requisite three chances and relied on a medical check-up from a Government hospital in Chhattisgarh (April 25, 2026) and a prior Chhattisgarh police recruitment record to claim his chest measurements met the criteria.

The respondents contended that specialized doctors conducted the PMT and that all candidates, including the petitioner, were provided three attempts.

1. Whether the Court can entertain disputed questions of fact regarding the number of attempts provided during a recruitment process under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether a candidate can seek re-evaluation of physical measurements based on certificates issued by external or third-party authorities.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution.

The physical standards recorded by the recruiting authority at the designated time of examination are the only relevant metrics, and measurements from any other authority cannot be substituted or relied upon, as established in Harun Miah v. Union of India & Ors. (2025:CHC-AS:1810-DB).

The court also emphasized the principle of non-discrimination in public recruitment, ensuring all candidates are treated uniformly.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim regarding the denial of three chances was a factual dispute contested by the respondents, making it unsuitable for summary determination in a writ petition.

Justice Sinha observed that the PMT was conducted by a specialized committee of doctors using a uniform procedure for all job aspirants.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on external medical reports from Chhattisgarh, noting that measurements must be taken at the specific time and place designated by the recruiting agency to maintain the sanctity of the process.

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to raise a contemporaneous grievance with the authorities on the day of the test (April 19, 2026) and instead approached the Court after the conclusion of the PMT window.

Providing the petitioner a second chance would constitute "discrimination qua the other unsuccessful candidates" and would open the floodgates for similar litigation by other failed aspirants.

The Court held that there was no error on the part of the respondents in the recruitment process and the writ petition was dismissed.