Measurement Of Individual's Height Also Depends On Timing Of Measurement: Madras High Court

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the plea of a man, who was rejected from the recruitment to the Assistant Conservator of Forest post as he fell short of the minimum prescribed height by 0.5 cm. The court directed the TNPSC to round off the height and declare him as having qualified with the minimum physical standards as far as height was concerned.

The petitioner had approached the court after he was disqualified for not meeting the minimum height criteria. When the court ordered re-measurement, his height was measured thrice using Digital Equipment and was below 162 cm (lesser than the initially recorded measurement of 162.05 cm).

Petitioner submitted that as per the order of the Full bench of the Madras High Court, the measurement had to be carried out by the Digital mode (Stadiometer) and rounded off by 0.5 cm. Thus, it was submitted that the initial height of 162.05 cm should have been rounded off to 163 cm and he should have been treated as having acquired the minimum physical standards and included for further selection.

The Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that it was on petitioner's application that his height was re-measured. He submitted that as per the fresh measurement, his height was less than 162 cm, and even by adopting rounding off, he could not be considered for rejection.

Petitioner, however, argued that there could not be an exact measurement of an individual's height and the measurement would keep varying by virtue of time. It was further informed that when his height, measured by a Government Physician, was shown as 163 cm the height of any individual would vary even with change in time of measurement.

The court noted that there could be a variation of height even when it is meticulously measured due to different factors like advancement in age and subsequent change in linear dimensions of the skull, vertebral column, pelvis, and legs and also due to diurnal variations i.e, depending on the time in which the measurement is taken.

The court also noted that while the court had directed the re-measurement to be carried out at 11 am, it was carried out at 1:48, 1:51, and 1:53 because of which there might have been variations in the height. The court thus noted that it could not go with the measurements obtained pursuant to the interim order and had to take the initial measurement.

The court also noted that when the height of a person could not be resolved on a physical or electronic basis, it had to be decided based on the set of principles and while considering the principles, the court also had to look into the attendant circumstances.

Thus, considering all the circumstances, the court directed the authorities to round off the height and consider petitioner for further selection.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.Narmadha Sampath for Mrs.Gayathri Vasudevan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr..Abrar Md Abdullah, Mr.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Dr.T.Srinivasan Special Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 243

Case Title: MM Karthikeyan v TNPSC and Others

Case No: W.P.Nos.13657 and 14840 of 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment