Delhi High Court
Inspector Shangkahao vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 July, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~70, 72, 73 & 92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11024/2025, CM APPL. 45393/2025 & CM APPL.
45394/2025
INSPECTOR SHANGKAHAO .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.D. Jangra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Sawant, Law
Officer, CRPF, Mr. Ajaypal, AC (LAW)
+ W.P.(C) 11042/2025, CM APPL. 45464/2025 & CM APPL.
45465/2025
INSPECTOR MUGHATOVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.D. Jangra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Mr.
Vinod Sawant, Law Officer, CRPF and Mr.
Ajaypal, AC, LAW
+ W.P.(C) 11045/2025, CM APPL. 45469/2025 & CM APPL.
45470/2025
INSPECTOR L H PAVEI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.D. Jangra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Mr.
Vinod Sawant, Law Officer, CRPF and Mr.
Ajaypal, AC, LAW
+ W.P.(C) 11088/2025, CM APPL. 45626/2025 & CM APPL.
45627/2025
W.P.(C) 11024/2025 and other connected matters
Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:30.07.2025
18:49:43
INSPECTOR TD CYRIL MIMIN ZOU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.D. Jangra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Khatana, Mr.
Vedansh, GP with Mr. Vinod Sawant, Law
Officer, CRPF and Mr. Ajaypal, AC, Law,
CRPF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 29.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are aspirants for the post
of Assistant Commandant (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces 1.
They underwent the selection process but were disqualified at the
stage of physical examination on the ground of insufficiency in height.
The petitioners are members of the Scheduled Tribes, from states in
the North East.
2. With consent of learned Counsel, as the issue is covered, the
petition is taken up finally.
3. The grievance of the petitioners are that they were assessed on
the basis of a height requirement of 165 cm, which stands relaxed in
1 "CAPF" hereinafter
W.P.(C) 11024/2025 and other connected matters
the case of the ST candidates from the North East to 162.5 cm. This,
he submits, stands affirmed by a judgment dated 13 August 2024 of a
Division Bench of this Court in Inspector TD Cyril Mimin Zou v
UOI2. The said decision followed an earlier judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Tholu Rocky v Director General CISF3.
4. For ready reference, we may reproduced paras 15 to 21 of the
decision in Cyril Mimin Zou, thus:
"15. In the present case, the petitioner is an aspirant belonging to
the ST category hailing from the State of Manipur. The Ministry of
Home Affairs vide its notification dated 01.12.2021 provided
relaxation to the ST candidates with the minimum height
requirement being 162.5 cms to the post of Assistant Commandant
in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) i.e. one of the sister
Forces of the CAPF. The relevant portion from the notifications
reads as under:
PHYSICAL AND MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR THE
CANDIDATE FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT
COMMANDANTS IN THE CISF SELECTED THROUGH
LIMITED DEPARTMENTAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION-
(1) Physical Standards: The Minimum requirements for the
candidate (for all categories) are as follows:
Men Women
Height 165 cm (Gen & SC)
157 cms (Gen
& SC)
162. cms (ST) 154 cms (ST)
Chest 81 cms (with 5 cm Not applicable
(unexpanded) minimum expansion)
Weight Corresponding to Corresponding
height to height
Medical SHAPE-I SHAPE-I
(Emphasis supplied)
2 Judgment dated 13 August 2024 in WP (C) 11133
3 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3828
W.P.(C) 11024/2025 and other connected matters
16. In these circumstances, we find no reason as to why the
said benefit regarding the relaxation, pertaining to which has been
made applicable to the aspirants seeking to join CAPF, cannot be
extended to the petitioner who is similarly placed in the ST
category in the ITBP. Hence, there is no justification for not
providing the relaxation in height, absence of which only becomes
an impediment in the petitioner's aspiration to move up the ladder
in his service career.
17. Even otherwise, viewed from this angle as well, the aspect
as noted hereinabove is squarely covered by the decision of this
Court in Tholu Rocky (supra) which has attained finality. The
petitioner, if not granted the relaxation, will suffer stagnation
without an opportunity to seek promotion to ascend in the
hierarchy.
18. We also find that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar
petition being W.P.(C) 2032/2023 wherein a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide its order dated 17.02.2023 had made the following
observations:
"7. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner
to proceed in the selection process, however, the result shall be
kept in a sealed cover and that will be subject to the outcome
of the present petition.
8. It is made clear that his height in question shall not
be taken into consideration while allowing the petitioner to
participate in the selection process"
19. However, since the petitioner could not qualify the
selection process on merits, the said writ petition was disposed of
on 16.11.2023 without rendering any finding qua the petitioner's
claims.
20. Accordingly, we direct that the respondents, subject to the
petitioner qualifying the other parameters of the selection process
and verification by the respondents of the petitioner's claim that he
was granted relaxation in height at the time of his induction in the
ITBP as a Sub-Inspector (GD), will permit him to take part in the
ongoing selection process after granting him the necessary
relaxation for considering his case for the post of Assistant
Commandant (GD) through LDCE.
21. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application also stands disposed of."
W.P.(C) 11024/2025 and other connected matters
5. The decision of the Division Bench in Cyril Mimin Zou was
taken to the Supreme Court by the Union of India by way of SLP (C)
Diary No. 53424/20244. The Supreme Court, by order dated 13
December 2024, declined to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
6. Mr. Kumar frankly acknowledges that he is not in a position to
distinguish the facts of the present case from the decision in Cyril
Mimin Zou.
7. In that view of the matter, following the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Cyril Mimin Zou, these writ petitions
are allowed. The respondents are directed to assess the petitioners'
height on the basis of a requirement of 162.5 cms instead of 165 cms.
8. In case the petitioners qualify on that basis, they shall be
permitted to participate in further rounds of selection.
9. The writ petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
JULY 29, 2025
AR
4 UOI v TD Cyril Mimin Zou
W.P.(C) 11024/2025 and other connected matters
