Relaxation of Physical Standards under Police Manual Rule 663(a)(iii) Does Not Override Statutory Age Restrictions

The petitioner, daughter of Late Kharag Bahadur Singh and a member of the Gorkha community, was appointed as a Constable on April 3, 1998.

She was subsequently removed from service on January 7, 2003, via District Order No. 20.

She challenged this removal in CWJC No. 3839 of 2003. On September 12, 2003, the High Court disposed of that petition, granting her liberty to file a representation based on Rule 663(a)(iii) of the Police Manual, directing the authorities to reconsider her case if no consensus decision regarding Gorkha candidates had been taken by the Selection Committee.

The petitioner submitted multiple representations over two decades without success and finally filed the present writ in 2024 (registered in 2025) seeking a reasoned order.

The State contended that her representation was considered and decided in 2023.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement or relief based on the special provisions for Gorkhas under Rule 663(a)(iii) of the Bihar Police Manual.

Rule 663(a) of the Bihar Police Manual prescribes the eligibility criteria for recruits, setting the general age limit between 19 and 27 years, extendable to 32 years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Rule 663(a)(iii) stipulates that there is no fixed physical standard for Gorkhas who are residents of India, requiring only that they be of the "best physique obtainable" and "at least literate".

While Rule 663(a)(iii) waives "physical standards" (height/chest measurements) for Gorkha candidates, it does not exempt them from the prescribed age limits.

The Court found that the petitioner was 40 years of age at the relevant time of the dispute. Since the maximum age limit even for reserved categories (SC/ST) is only 32 years, the petitioner significantly exceeded the statutory age eligibility.

The Court reasoned that the benefit of Rule 663(a)(iii) pertains only to physical measurements and does not override the age disqualification.

The Court found no merit in the writ petition as the petitioner failed to meet the fundamental age criteria for the post. The petition was dismissed.