Madras High Court
R.Balaji vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service ... on 29 June, 2021
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29 .06.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.6507 of 2021
R.Balaji ... Appellant
vs
1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Borad,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Chairman Sub-Committee/Member,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Borad,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008. ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of 12
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against
the final order dated 19.01.2021, made in W.P. No.16191 of 2020.
****
For Appellant : Mr.M.Pragadeeswaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakantan
State Government Pleader
****
JUDGMENT
(delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy,J., )
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, in W.P.No.16191 of 2020, dated 19.01.2021.
2.The facts of the case is that, on 08.03.2019, the second respondent
published a Notification No.2 of 2019, for direct recruitment for the post of
Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special
Police) 2019. On the same day, Information Brochure was also published
by the second respondent for the said recruitment. Consequent to the
notification, the appellant has applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police and participated in the written examination on 12.01.2020 and
scored 50 out of 70 marks. Therefore, the appellant was called for the
second stage i.e., Physical Measurement Test (PMT)/Physical Endurance
Test (ET)/Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 06.10.2020 and the appellant's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
height was measured through digital measurement device and recorded as
169.0 cms. According to the appellant, his height is 172 cms. Therefore, he
appealed to the third respondent for re-measurement. In the re-
measurement, the height of the appellant was measured as 168.5 cms and
the same was also videographed. Since the height of the candidate, who
comes under BC communities should be 170 cms, the appellant was
disqualified.
3.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed the writ petition in
W.P.No.16191 of 2020, claiming that his height is 172 cms and there is a
discrepancy in the measurement recorded using digital measurement device
during the physical test. The appellant privately measured his height,
wherein the appellant's height was recorded as 172 cms and in this regard,
Dr.K.V.Sivakumar, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Government Medical
College has issued a certificate. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
said writ petition stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief
sought for, in terms of the order of the Full Bench of this Court in
W.A.Nos.8 to 12, 14 to 16, 23 & 24 of 2020 dated 05.02.2020. Against
which, the present Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the height of
the appellant is 172 cms, which is more than 2 cms of the eligibility criteria
for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Though the appellant has the
eligible height of 172 cm, due to the discrepancy in the measurement he
was disqualified.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when
the petitioner had measured his height through Civil Medical Board, it was
recorded as 172 cms and there is no chance for variation of 3.5 cms.
Hence, there is discrepancy in the digital measurement recorded by the third
respondent. Further, the right of the appellant has been deprived, therefore,
he filed the writ petition to permit him to participate in the remaining tests.
The learned Single Judge without considering these aspects, simply
dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant has not sought for the
re-measurement of his height. According to the appellant, the re-
measurement of height is not required since the appellant's height has been
certified by the Doctor as 172 cms. Therefore, he sought for relief for
participating in the remaining physical tests.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
6.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted
that since lot of discrepancies happen in the measurement of height during
the selection process, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court had issued
directions to conduct the physical test using the digital measurement device.
The respondents constantly following the directions issued in the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, have conducted the
physical test and all these points were considered by the learned Single
Judge. Hence, the appeal has no merits and the same is liable to the
dismissed.
7.We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both
sides and perused the materials on record.
8.During the physical test conducted on 06.10.2020, the appellant's
height was initially measured as 169 cms through digital measurement
device. Subsequently, he made an appeal to the respondents to re-measure
his height and consequent to the appeal, the height of the appellant was
measured digitally on 06.10.2020 and recorded as 168.5 cms. Now, the
grievance of the appellant is that even though the measurement was done
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
digitally, it shows two different measurements at two different points of
time. Whereas, when the appellant measured his height with the Civil
Medical Board Doctor on 28.10.2020, it was recorded as 172 cms. Hence,
the appellant seeks direction to measure his height once again.
9.In order to avoid these type of litigations, the Hon'ble Full Bench of
this Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2020 in W.A.Nos.8 to 12, 14 to 16, 23
& 24 of 2020, has suggested to go for the measurements using the digital
measurement device. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to
extract Paragraph Nos.37 to 40 of the said judgment as under:
37. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
prescription of minimum height that has been taken as a
policy decision by the Government should not be ordinarily
interfered with by a Court of law,the same being a matter of
expertise and specific requirement for policing of the State.
The prescription of such height therefore should not also be
compromised by the State, nor should it be diluted by
judicial intervention.
38.The question therefore is that in order to maintain
the sanctity of prescription, whether the State Government
has taken appropriate measures for standardizing the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
in order to avoid any such discrepancy. Learned Advocate
General, during the course of arguments, has passed on a
leaflet informing the Court that for the purpose of
measuring the height and weight of the candidates, they
have taken care to requisition Digitized Electronic Devices,
the description whereof indicates that it operates with a
sensor machine and measures the height from the bottom of
the foot to the top of the head. This machine was, however,
not utilized during the initial measurement, but was
deployed at the stage of appeal and again not during re-
measurement on Court directions.
39. It is not understood as to why the same was not
adopted for re-measurement after the Court orders
intervened. Nonetheless, the description of the device
indicates that it has weight platform with a head sensor for
proper placement of foot on the weighing platform and
raises an alarm in case of improper standing posture. Spirit
level ensures correct level of the platform and the
measurement cannot take place unless the sensors are
activated. It has a measurement capacity of minimum 150
cms to a maximum of 200 cms with a readability +/- one
millimeter.
40. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
adoption of such scientific measuring device may almost be
perfect, minimizing the possibility of errors and therefore,
should be adopted and standardized as a measuring device
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
at every stage of the measurement of heights of a candidate.
A standard procedure with the same instrument before
different authorities will reduce the possibility of any
disproportionate variation that may ultimately give rise to
any further dispute or litigation. To this extent, the method
and procedure of measuring heights deserves rectification
that will eliminate any adverse possibilities as indicated or
complained of in the various writ petitions, the judgments
whereof have been cited at the bar.”
10. A perusal of the above judgment reveals that the measuring the
height by scientific measuring device would minimize the possibility of any
disproportionate variation that may ultimately give rise to any further
dispute or litigation. Of course the variation of 0.5 cm would occur when
the height of the candidate measured at different points of time. This aspect
was also taken note by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. Considering
the request of the appellant his height was measured for the second time
and it was marked as 168.5 cm. Even in the second measurement the
appellant's height was not up to the mark i.e., 170 cms. Therefore, we feel it
is not necessary to send the appellant once again to measure his height
particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court cited supra. Further, the relief sought in the writ petition is to allow
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
the petitioner to participate in the remaining Physical Measurement Test
etc., when the petitioner does not satisfy the requirment of minimum height,
certainly, he is not entitled to participate in the remaining Physical
Measurement Test (PMT)/Physical Endurance Test (ET)/Physical
Efficiency Test (PET). All these aspects have been considered by the
learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.01.2020 and it does not
warrant any interference. Besides, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that the entire selection process was completed on 15.04.2021
and there is no post vacant. The said statement is recorded. Accordingly, the
writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
29.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
rst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
To
1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Borad,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Chairman Sub-Committee/Member,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Borad,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
rst
W.A.No.1033 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.6507 of 2021
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
