In W.P.(C) 2032/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court upholds petitioner's disqualification in ITBP recruitment, height relaxation question left open
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva & Justice Manoj Jain [16-11-2023]

Read Order: Inspector TD Cyril Mimin Zou V. Union of India & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 24, 2023: The Delhi High Court has refused to consider the petitioner's request for relaxation in height standards for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) recruitment process, leaving the question open for future consideration.

In the said case, the petitioner, Inspector TD Cyril Mimin Zou, was disqualified in the recruitment process for the ITBP on the grounds that his height measured 163 cm, falling short of the prescribed standard height of 165 cm. In an order dated 17.02.2023, it was directed that the respondent should allow the petitioner to proceed in the selection process. However, the results were to be kept in a sealed cover, and it was specified that the height issue should not be considered while permitting the petitioner to participate in the selection process. The respondents, in compliance with the directive, allowed the petitioner to continue in the selection process, temporarily overlooking the height condition.

Before the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain, the result of the petitioner was presented in a sealed cover, revealing that the petitioner had scored lower marks in merit compared to other candidates in the same category, i.e., Scheduled Tribe.

The counsel for the respondent asserted that there were no vacancies in the Scheduled Tribe category. In contrast, the counsel for the petitioner argued that there was, in fact, one vacancy in the Scheduled Tribe category within the ITBP.

The bench determined that, without delving into the mentioned controversy, it was evident that the petitioner did not hold the senior-most position in the order of merit within the Scheduled Tribe category. Even if there were one vacancy, the bench concluded that the vacancy should be filled by a person senior in merit to the petitioner.

“Since petitioner has not made it on merit, we are not examining the question of relaxation in terms of height raised by the petitioner. Said question is left open,” observed the division bench.

With the above observations, the Court directed for the release and publication of the petitioner's result and disposed of the petition accordingly.