Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Talari Meghanath, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 October, 2023

          THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

             Writ Petition Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023


COMMON ORDER:

          Writ petition No.26479 of 2023 came to be filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following

relief:

                  "...to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly

          one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

          the 2nd Respondent in conducting Height AND Chest

measurement as part of Physical Measurement with an

inaccurate Digital Height and Chest Measuring machine

which gives every time a different reading and resulted in

disqualifying of the petitioners who are fully qualified and

most of them had qualified with more height and chest in

earlier recruitment of 2019 conducted by the same respondent

board as illegal arbitrary discriminatory against principles of

natural justice and violative of Art 14 16 19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently Direct the 2nd

Respondent to Retake the height and chest of the Petitioner

herein forthwith with MANUAL measuring system and allow

the Petitioners herein to participate in the further selection

process in the interest of justice...."

Writ petition No.26653 of 2023 came to be filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following

relief:

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

"...to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly

one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

the 2nd Respondent in conducting Height and Chest

measurement as part of Physical Measurement with an

inaccurate Digital Height and Chest Measuring machine for

Notification R.C.No.163/SLRPB/RECT-1/2023, Dt.28.11.2022

as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory against principles of

natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16 of the Constitution

of India and consequently Direct the 2nd Respondent to

undertake the height and chest measurements MANUALLY by

allowing the Petitioners to participate in the further selection

process in the interest of justice and to pass...."

Since the relief claimed in both the petitions is identical,

I find that it is appropriate to decide both the writ petitions by

common order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners,

in the year 2018 have applied for the post of SCT SI (civil) as per

notification R.C.No.216/SLRPB/RECT-1/2018, dated

01.10.2018 of Chairman SLRPB Andhra Pradesh, and were

qualified in prelims and physical measurements but were not

given job as they did not secure merit marks in main exams.

Thereafter, in the year 2022, a notification dated 28.11.2022

was issued for recruiting SCT Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) by

the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

(SLRPB, AP) in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.153 of Home

(Services.IV) Department dated 20th October, 2022. The

aforesaid notification was issued specifying important details,

including the application procedure, examination dates

eligibility criteria and also recruitment process which involves

multiple stages like the preliminary written test, physical

measurement tests, physical efficiency test and subsequent

stages.

3. In pursuance of the notification dated 28.11.2022,

the petitioners have applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of

Police (Civil), and they underwent physical measurement test in

the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police at Eluru,

Visakhapatnam, Kurnool and Guntur, but, however, their

candidature was rejected on the ground that they had less

height and chest measurements than the prescribed figures. As

such, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal to the

respondents for retaking the measurements by way of manual

measurements, but, in spite of the same, the measurements

were once again calculated using digital process, which led to

their disqualification. As per the notification, a candidate's

height shall not be less than 167.6 c.m.s, and the main

grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent has

conducted height and chest measurement as part of physical

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

measurement with an inaccurate digital height measuring

machine which gives a different reading each time and has

resulted in disqualification of the petitioners though they were

qualified in the earlier recruitment of the year 2018 conducted

by the same respondent board. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners made a representation to the D.I.G., and Chairman

of Police Recruitment narrating the petitioners' grievance, but,

till date no action has been initiated. The petitioners also made

representations to the 2nd respondent seeking to retake the

measurement with manual measures, but of no avail. Hence,

the writ petition.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed

written instructions received from the Chairman, State Level

Police Recruitment Board, Mangalagiri, Guntur District vide

Rc.No.61/SLPRB/Legal-I/2023 dated 9.10.2023, wherein it is

specifically contended that there is a provision for appeal for

re-measurement of height and chest. All those candidates who

were disqualified in PMT were given second chance for appeal on

their request on the same day. The appeal board has conducted

re-measurement by taking utmost care in re-measuring the

height of all the appellate candidates including the petitioners.

Before commencement of PMT/PET on 24.08.2023, the digital

measuring equipments were examined by the Assistant

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

Controller, Legal Metrology and found that they are in good

working condition. Total 46,078 candidates have attended the

PMT in all Ranges, their heights and chests were digitally

measured, but no one raised any objection against the digital

measurement and its accuracy. The petitioners herein after

being disqualified in PMT have raised objections on digital

measurement, which is not appreciable. Even though one more

opportunity was given to the petitioners to re-measure their

height and chest, they did not qualify. At this stage, the

petitioners cannot be permitted to raise objection with regard to

digital measurements that are being used for PMT.

5. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for

the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services

-I.

6. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners would contend that when petitioner No.1 appeared

for PMT in pursuance of the notification

R.C.No.216/SLRPB/RECT-1/2018 dated 01.10.2018, his height

was measured as 167.8 cms, however, he was not selected as he

did not secure merit marks in the main exam, but when he

appeared for PMT in pursuance of the present notification, his

height was measured as 166.9 cms initially and the same was

shown as 167.5 cms on the same day when he preferred appeal,

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

accordingly his candidature was rejected, which creates a doubt

on the accuracy of digital measurement machine.

7. He would further contend that without there being a

physical measurement, the digital calculations are proved as

wrong in the earlier occasions as well and the veracity of the

digital meters is a disputed question in the absence of any

recognized expert's authentication, requested to direct the

respondents to retake measurement of the height and chest of

the petitioners with ―Manual‖ measuring system.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Services - I would

contend that the Selection Board has been using digital

measurement equipments for the past 10 years for Physical

Measurements Test (PMT), but no one raised any objection. In

fact, the petitioners also did not raise any objection as to the use

of digital measurement equipment at the first instance, but

when they were disqualified in PMT, they came up with the new

version that the digital measurements are not accurate and

requested the authorities to take their measurements manually.

PMT was conducted in the month of August, 2023, but the

petitioners approached this Court immediately after issuing hall

tickets to the qualified candidates for the main examination.

When a candidate appears in the examination without protest

and subsequently is found to be not successful in the

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

examination, the question of entertaining the petition

challenging such examination would not arise.

9. He would further contend that the selection process

almost came to an end and, at this stage, the petitioners cannot

be permitted to take new plea that manual equipment has to be

used for taking their measurement, without there being any

protest at the first instance. In a recruitment process, a

candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal,

whatsoever may be the genuineness of the grievance, at the end

of recruitment process, as in the present case, the final exam

will be conducted on 14.10.2023 and 15.10.2023, requested to

dismiss the writ petition.

10. In the present facts of the case, notification

R.C.No.163/SLRPB/RECT-1/2023 was issued on 26.11.2022.

Physical Measurement Tests were conducted at Eluru,

Visakhapatnam, Kurnool and Guntur from 25.08.2023 to

25.09.2023. The respondents took measurements by way of

digital process. On such physical examination, the respondents

rejected the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that

their height is not up to the standards prescribed in the

notification. When the petitioners appeared for physical

measurement test in pursuance of the earlier notification issued

vide R.C.No.216/SLRPB/RECT-1/2018, dated 01.10.2018, they

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

were qualified in the physical measurements test, but this time

their candidature was rejected due to lack of sufficient height.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on ―Asha

Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration1‖, wherein the Apex

Court held as follows:

―Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the decision making process and the decision taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such an action can normally be termed as 'arbitrary'. Where the process of decision making is followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of arbitrariness. of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration within the scope of judicial review. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the pre-requisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision making process of the State has also become an essential part of our Administrative law.

The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which 'may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logical.

The principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.‖

12. On the strength of the law laid down in the said

judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

(2011)10SCC86

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind

are some of the pre-requisites of proper decision making. The

concept of transparency in the decision making process of the

State has also become an essential part of our Administrative

law. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments

and policy decisions, which 'may be necessary or called for

under the prevalent peculiar circumstances.

13. Learned Government Pleader for Services - I relied

on ―Sadananda Halo Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh2‖ wherein, it

was held as under :

―59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100]..... The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285], where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise.‖

14. In ―Ran Vijay Singh case [Ran Vijay

Singh v. State of U.P.3" the Apex Court held as follows:

―31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the

(2008) 4 SCC 619

(2018) 2 SCC 357

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023 complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years.

Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination--whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.‖

15. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the said

judgments is not in dispute, but they are not applicable to the

present facts of the case.

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

16. The method of Physical Measurements Test (PMT)

described in the notification is as follows:

―B) PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS TEST (PMT): Candidate who qualifies in the Preliminary Written Test has to undergo Physical Measurements Test and should meet the following requirements:

i. MEN: For the Post Code Nos. 11 and 13:

a) Height: Must not be less than 167.6 centimeters.

b) Chest: Must not be less than 86.3 centimetres round the chest on full inspiration with a minimum expansion of 5 centimetres.

ii. WOMEN: For the Post Code No. 11:

a) Height: Must not be less than 152.5 centimeters.

b) Weight: Must not be less than 40 Kgs.

NOTE: Provided that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Aboriginal Tribes in the Agency areas of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari and West Godavari districts should meet the following requirements..........‖

17. On perusal of the notification, it appears that

physical measurements test will be conducted to the candidates,

but the mode of taking physical measurements was not specified

in the notification i.e. use of manual scale or digital equipment.

In the present facts of the case, if the case of petitioner No.1 is

taken into consideration, the height of petitioner No.1 was

recorded as 167.8 cms when he appeared for the selection in

pursuance of the notification issued in 2018 and he was

qualified in PMT in 2018. In general, the height of a person does

not change after sometime, but the height of petitioner No.1 was

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023

recorded as 166.9 cms when he appeared for PMT on

26.08.2023, and when he made an appeal to retake his

measurements, his height was recorded as 167.5 cms. The

above measurements were taken by using digital machine. There

is a variation in measurements taken on different point of times.

The same issue is prevailing in case of other petitioners also.

Then, the petitioners raised an objection as to the usage of

digital equipment and requested the authorities to take

measurements manually, but the respondents failed to consider

the request of the petitioners.

18. If the contention of the learned Government Pleader

for Services - I that the selection board has been using digital

equipment for the past 10 years for conducting physical

measurements test (PMT) is accepted; the question of

disqualifying them now in the year 2023 does not arise when

they were qualified in the year 2018 using the same digital

equipment.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

in the similar circumstances, the High Court of Telangana in

―L.Mahesh Vs. State of Telangana (W.P.No.46872 of 2022 and

batch)‖ passed the following order.

―7. In view of the submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to give one-time opportunity to all the writ petitioners in the above writ petitions and to all the

VS,J W.P.Nos.26479 and 26653 of 2023 candidates whose height is recorded less than 1.5cm and accordingly the respondents are directed to fix up an appropriate date by giving the said information through widely circulated/recognised electronic and print media to avail such opportunity to measure such candidates' heights manually and if found eligible to allow them for the next level of examination, if necessary by involving the experts measuring the height for calculating the physical height of the candidates.‖

20. It is evident from the material filed by the

petitioners and the memo filed by the learned Government

Pleader for Services-1, there are some discrepancies with regard

to the height of the petitioners and it is also evident from the

memo filed by the learned Government Pleader for Services-1

that only some petitioners have preferred appeal. In view of the

discrepancies that occurred while measuring height by digital

process and as the suspicion has been arisen with regard to the

physical qualification of the height, and with a view to afford one

more opportunity to the petitioners as the present notification

was released after a duration of four years, I deem it appropriate

to grant the relief to the petitioners as prayed.