Judicial Review Not an Appeal: P&H HC Dismisses Challenge to CRPF Physical Test Outcome
Case Name: Jaswinder Kumar v. Union of India and Others
Date of Judgment: 23 April 2026
Citation: CWP-2233-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The High Court held that factual determinations made by competent recruitment authorities, particularly involving technical assessments like physical measurements, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse, mala fide, or patently illegal. Repeated and consistent measurements by expert bodies negate allegations of arbitrariness.
Summary: The petitioner challenged his rejection from the post of Constable (Technical & Tradesmen) in CRPF on the ground that his height was incorrectly measured during the Physical Standard Test, his height was measured as 164.3 cm initially and 164.5 cm upon re-measurement, falling short of the prescribed 165 cm requirement.
After an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed reconsideration, pursuant to which a fresh Board of Officers conducted another measurement on 29.10.2024, again recording the petitioner’s height as 164.5 cm. Despite three opportunities, the petitioner remained below the required standard.
The petitioner alleged arbitrariness, bias, and incorrect measurement, relying even on a later AIIMS record showing his height as 165 cm. However, the Court noted that such subsequent measurement, not conducted under the recruitment procedure, cannot override measurements taken by duly constituted expert bodies.
The Court extensively reiterated the settled law on judicial review in recruitment matters, emphasizing that it cannot act as an appellate authority over factual findings of expert committees unless there is perversity or illegality. Reliance was placed on precedents including Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan.
Given that the petitioner’s height was consistently found below the minimum standard across three independent measurements, including one conducted pursuant to court directions, the Court found no arbitrariness or procedural unfairness.
Decision: The Court held that the petitioner’s claim essentially sought re-appreciation of factual findings recorded by expert authorities, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction. It observed that the recruitment process was conducted fairly, transparently, and in compliance with legal requirements, with multiple opportunities granted to the petitioner for re-measurement. The consistent findings across different boards undermined allegations of bias or manipulation. The Court further held that subsequent medical records obtained independently could not displace the measurements recorded during the official recruitment process. Finding no perversity, mala fides, or illegality, the Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant any relief.