Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 (1)+ W.P.(C) 9490/2023
ATUL KUMAR VERMA AND ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr.Ajay Garg, Mr.Uday Garg, Advs.
Through: Ms.Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC, Ms.Gurleen Kaur
Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Advs. (2)+ W.P.(C) 9502/2023
AMITABH .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Ajay Garg, Mr.Uday Garg, Advs.
Through: Mr.Rahul Sharma, CGSC, Mr.Manikant Sharma, Ms.Shikha Singh, Advs.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. These review petitions have been filed seeking recall of the Judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed by this Court, wherein this Court, placing reliance on paragraph 2(d) of the Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for recruitment in CAPFs, NSG, and AR (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Medical Guidelines’), held that while measuring height, any fraction of less than 0.5cm shall be ignored, whereas any fraction of 0.[5] cm or more shall be rounded off to the next higher centimeter. Accordingly, some of the writ petitioners, whose height had been measured more than 169.50cm, were found eligible for appointment on the height standard, and further direction in this regard had been issued.
2. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents in the Writ Petitions/Review Petitioners contend that as far as paragraph 2(d) of the Medical Guidelines is concerned, the same are relevant only for determining the eligibility of the candidates who were found to be overweight/underweight. They submit that with respect to the height standard, the same is to be tested only at the stage of Physical Standard Test (PST) and not by a Medical Officer, and, therefore, paragraph 2(d) of the Medical Guidelines would not be applicable at the PET stage. They place reliance on Clause 11.6.[2] of the Advertisement in this regard.
3. They also placed reliance on the Circular dated 24.08.2015, contending that thereby a clarification with respect to paragraph 2(d) of the Medical Guidelines has been issued by the CRPF, indicating that the said Clause is to be applied only while considering the candidates on the standard of weight who are found borderline overweight/underweight.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
5. Clause 2(d) of the Medical Guideline reads us under:
6. A reading of the above would show that the above Clause states that for height, a fraction of a centimeter less than 0.[5] will be ignored, and 0.[5] centimeter or more will be rounded off to the next higher centimeter. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the PST standard of height. The above relaxation appears to have been intentionally given as there can be different measuring tools or processes adopted by the different recruiting agencies at the time of conduct of the PST and this may result the varying results. There can also not be an exactitude in such measurement and some benefit of doubt needs to be given to the candidates in this regard. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case itself, the petitioners had earlier been declared fit with respect to the height standard in the earlier recruitment process, as also by different government hospitals.
7. As far as the reliance on the Circular dated 24.08.2015 is concerned, it is merely clarificatory in nature with respect to the query whether the PST Board can reject a candidate for being declared overweight/underweight or whether this determination must be made only by the Medical Officer/Medical Board during the MET/RME. Therefore, it does not deviate from the standard/relaxation provided in paragraph 2(d) of the Medical Guidelines.
8. For the above stated reasons, we find no merit in the review petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MANOJ JAIN, J MAY 9, 2025/Arya/DG