CAPF rejects candidate for being ‘1 cm short’, Gauhati High Court orders to measure again

The petitioner had applied under the 2025 recruitment process, but his candidature was rejected at the PST stage on the ground that he did not meet the prescribed minimum height of 165 cm. His height was recorded as 164 cm at the recruitment centre on August 26, 2025.

He challenged the rejection before the high court. Following his first petition, the court directed the authorities to expeditiously decide his appeal against the rejection. As the direction was not complied with, he filed a contempt petition. During its pendency, the authorities informed him on May 12 that his appeal had been rejected. The petitioner then approached the high court for the second time, questioning the rejection of his appeal.

Justice Nelson Sailo heard the matter on August 12.

‘Plea rejected without measuring again’

The court noted that the petitioner had appealed against the rejection of his candidature, but the rejection order did not show that his height was re-measured while deciding the appeal. Instead, the authorities appeared to have relied on the original measurement of 164 cm taken on August 26, 2025.

“A perusal of the rejection of the appeal petition would go to show that the measurement undertaken at the recruitment centre on August 26, 2025, has been shown as the grounds for not accepting the appeal,” it noted.

The court highlighted that the prescribed minimum height was 165 cm, while the petitioner had been recorded as 164 cm. Since the appeal process did not indicate any fresh measurement, the court directed the authorities to measure the petitioner’s height again and communicate the result to him.

Other rulings

Setting aside the Review Medical Examination (RME) Board’s decision declaring a candidate unfit for a CAPF constable post due to a “winged scapula”, the Calcutta High Court held that rejecting a candidate based solely on clinical findings violated mandatory guidelines. It ordered a fresh medical examination compliant with rules, requiring proper confirmatory tests and specialist opinions.

Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra was dealing with a plea of a candidate who applied for the post of constable (general duty-GD) under the CAPF through the 2025 examination.

“A decision on rejection must be taken with valid clinical findings fully justified and supported by corroboratory investigation reports and, if needed, the opinion of specialists. These are, therefore, in short, Guidelines which have been prescribed by the authorities to ensure that the RME, which is the last body available to the incumbent to prepare a report, especially if the incumbent is declared unfit and his candidature rejected,” the court said on August 4.

Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed petitions filed by two CRPF inspectors who were denied promotion to the post of assistant commandant after being declared medically unfit due to the tattoos on their right forearms (saluting arms). The court held that personnel serving in disciplined forces cannot claim ignorance of the applicable recruitment rules.

Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan were on July 1 hearing the plea of two CISF personnel, Ankit Mann and Pradhan Choudhary, challenging the medical and review medical examination reports that declared them unfit because of their tattoos. The bench also observed that subsequent removal of a disqualifying tattoo cannot cure an ineligibility that existed when the candidates applied for promotion.