Saurabh Kumar And 44 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners had appeared in the recruitment for the Uttar Pradesh Constable Civil Police Direct Recruitment 2023 and after being successful in the written examination, they were called for document verification and physical standard test on different dates. In the physical test, the height of the petitioners was determined below 168 c.ms. which is less than the prescribed height of 168 c.ms.

It is noticed that the petitioners were given opportunity twice and on both occasions, their height was determined to be less than minimum physical standards prescribed and therefore, the petitioners were declared to be unfit. It has further been stated that for similar circumstances other candidates have been directed to appear for additional time before the board constituted by the respondents in this regard.

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that board was duly constituted as per the directions of this Court and on the direction of this Court persons similarly situated were examined till 01.03.2025 till 02.00 p.m. and once the said medical board has been dissolved now the matter is before the recruitment body for further directions. The further process of the recruitment cannot be interfered by this Court at this stage.

Apart from the above, this Court finds that the petitioners had undergone the review medical board and there is no reason disclosed in the writ petition as to why the petitioners waited for over one month before filing a writ petition and seeking a direction for re-examination of their height. During a recruitment process, one month is extremely long length of time considering the fact that the entire timeline is given in the advertisement and is also communicated to the candidates. Further, it is noticed that during physical verification test, in case the candidate is aggrieved by any of the determination made by such medical board, he has a right to file an appeal and the appellate medical board also is constituted and in the present case had examined the case of the petitioners where again their height was determined to the less than the prescribed standard. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not afforded adequate opportunity and in the aforesaid circumstances, the direction as sought by the petitioners cannot be granted and this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not exercise its discretion in the peculiar circumstances of the case specially when the time prescribed for re--medical test is already over.