Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea by Constable Candidate Alleging Wrong Height Measurement; Terms 0.5 cm Difference “Plausible and Negligible”
Case Name: Renu v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CWP-32258-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a female constable aspirant alleging wrongful height measurement in a 2015 recruitment process. Justice Jagmohan Bansal upheld the Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s reasoning that a marginal variation of 0.5 cm between two physical tests (2016 and 2021) was natural and attributable to standing posture, spinal compression, or physical activity. The Court found no procedural irregularity or mala fide on part of the recruiting body, holding that the difference was scientifically plausible and did not entitle the petitioner to any higher marks.
Summary: The petitioner, holding a Master’s degree in Public Administration and belonging to the BCA category, applied for the post of Female Constable under Advertisement No. 8/2015. Her height was recorded as 166.8 cm, earning her 12 marks — half a mark short of the cutoff (47.75). She reapplied under Advertisement No. 4/2020, where her height was measured as 167.3 cm. Claiming that her earlier height was wrongly recorded, she sought a re-evaluation of her 2015 candidature. Following a prior writ (CWP-1161-2022) and subsequent contempt petition, her representation was reconsidered but rejected by order dated 23.10.2024. The Commission explained that variations in height result from posture, spinal compression, and physiological conditions, emphasizing that PMT tests are conducted under strict supervision with certified equipment and medical oversight. The Court accepted this reasoning, finding the variation negligible and the grievance belated, as no objection had been raised in 2016.
Decision: Dismissing the petition, the Court held that the petitioner was rightly awarded 12 marks, as 13 marks were reserved for candidates with a height of 169 cm. It ruled that the difference of 0.5 cm did not justify re-measurement or revision of merit position. Observing that the petitioner raised the issue only after five years, Justice Bansal noted she appeared to be “making hay while the sun shines.” The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly dismissed.