Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anupriya Rai vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 13 November, 2025
Reserved on 11.11.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
NAINITAL CIRCUIT BENCH, NEW DELHI.
(This the 13th day of November, 2025)
Original Application No.2360/2025
Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Anupriya Rai,
D/o Shri Mukul Kumar Rai
Permanent Resident of: R/o Village Kaligaon, Post
office-Lohaghat, District- Champawat, Uttarakhand
Presently at:- Kolkata, West Bengal.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vijay Bhatt
Shri Priyank Kharkwal
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission, Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069.
2. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT), North Block, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi-110001.
3. Ministry of Home Affairs Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi-110001
4. Chairman, Medical Board, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari
Nagar, New Delhi-110064.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate: Shri T. C. Aggarwal
2
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Vijay Bhatt, Shri Priyank Kharkwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri T. C. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Original Application, u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"a. Quash the order of the Medical Board rejecting the applicant for IPS on the ground of height.
b. Declare that the Applicant is eligible for IPS based on valid height relaxation under Regulation 8(3) of Appendix III. c. Direct the Respondents to allocate IPS to the Applicant as per her CSE 2024 rank and preference.
d. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are that she appeared for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2024 conducted by the UPSC and secured All India Rank 189. Based on her rank and service preference, she was well within the range for selection to the Indian Police Service (IPS). During her medical examination on 05.03.2025 at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi, the Central Standing Medical Board (CSMB) declared her unfit for all technical services, including IPS, because her height was 147 cm, which is 3 cm less than the general minimum height of 150 cm for women.
3.1 The applicant, however, belongs to the Kumaoni community of Uttarakhand, which is listed among races eligible for height relaxation under Regulation 8(3) of Appendix III of the "Regulations Page 2 of 12 3 Relating to the Medical Examination of Candidates for the Civil Services Examination, 2024." For women of such communities, the minimum height is 145 cm. She submitted valid documents--Birth Certificate, Domicile Certificate, and Hill Area Certificate--to prove her eligibility for the relaxation. Despite this, UPSC and DoPT ignored these documents and did not correct the error, even after she filed representations and RTI applications. 3.2 This is not the first time the applicant has faced such injustice. In CSE 2022, she was declared unfit for technical services (height measured 148 cm) and denied allocation to the Indian Railway Management Service (IRMS), despite being eligible for height relaxation. Her medical appeal in 2023 was dismissed without considering her documents, and the appellate medical report was not uploaded on the UPSC portal. As a result, she was allotted to a lower-preference service, the Indian Postal Service (IPoS), while lower-ranked candidates got IRMS.
3.3 She repeatedly submitted representations and met DoPT officials in person but received no response. In CSE 2024, the same issue occurred again as she was declared unfit for IPS on height grounds despite being eligible for relaxation. She once again submitted all documents and representations to UPSC and DoPT, but no action or decision was communicated to her. Page 3 of 12 4 3.4 Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. It is the contention of the applicant that though she is currently serving in Kolkata, West Bengal, as an officer of the Indian Postal Service (IPoS), but is a permanent resident of Champawat district, Uttarakhand, belonging to the Kumaoni community, and is, therefore, entitled to the prescribed height relaxation under the rules.
3.5 The applicant contends that the respondents' actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the examination regulations, causing her serious and repeated injustice in her career. The Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that applicant appeared in Civil Service Examination-2024 (CSE-2024) and secured all India rank 189 and she is well within consideration for allocation of IPS cadre. Applicant appeared before Central Standing Medical Board (in short CSMB) on 05.03.2025 and CSMB declared applicant "Unfit for all technical services including IPS on the sole ground that her height measured 147 cm, which is 3 cm short of the general minimum of 150 cm for female candidates", hence the applicant is before this Tribunal
4. Shri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for applicant much emphasized that applicant belongs to Kumaoni community of Uttarakhand and holds Birth Certificate, Domicile Certificate and Hill Area Certificate issued by competent authority as per Regulations relating to the Medical Exam of candidates for CSE- Page 4 of 12 5 2024 (in short Regulations) (Annexure A-5) Regulations 8(2) & 8(3) envisaged minimum standard for height for women for IPS, minimum height 150 cm and the relaxed minimum height 145 cm standard in case of candidates belonging to races such as "Kumaoni " are applicable to IPS Group A, Group B Police Services and Group A posts in IRPFS. The applicant is female candidate belonging to Kumaoni race is entitled for relaxation in height and applicant's height is of 147 cm is well within the permissible limit.
5. He further submitted that the CSMB conducted medical exam on 05.03.2025 and uploaded in CSE plus portal, declared applicant unfit for all technical services including IPS on sole ground that her height measured 147 cm, which is 3 cm short of general minimum of 150 cm for female candidates. The applicant belongs to the Kumaoni Community of Uttarakhand and holds a valid document i.e. Birth Certificate, Domicile Certificate and Hill Area Certificate issued by competent authority as per Regulations 8(3) of Appendix-Ill of Regulations relating to the Medical Exam of candidates for CSE 2024 (Annexure A-4 & A-5). The said Regulation 8(3) provides minimum height requirement for female candidates belonging to races like Kumaoni is relaxed to 145 cm and applicant's height 147 cm is well within permissible limit. The applicant fulfills minimum standard for height under relaxation of minimum height standard in case of candidates of Kumaoni race as per Regulation 8(3) filed as Annexure A-5. The aforementioned Regulation reads as under: Page 5 of 12 6
"8(3) However, for certain services minimum standard for height and chest girth without which candidates cannot be accepted, are as follows:
Service Gender Height Chest Expansion
girth fully
expanded
Indian Police Service-Group 'A', Indian Men 165 cm* 84 cm 5 cm
Railway Protection Force Service (IRPFS)-
Group 'A' , Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Women 150 cm* 79 cm 5 cm
Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and
Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service
(DANIPS)- Group 'B' and Pondicherry Transgender 150 cm* 79 cm 5 cm
Police Service (PONDIPS)
Indian Railway Management Service Men 152 cm$ 84 cm 5 cm
(IRMS), Group 'A'
Women 150 cm$ 79 cm 5 cm
Transgender 150 cm$ 79 cm 5 cm
*The following relaxed minimum height standards in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and to the races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland are applicable to Indian Police Service Group 'A', Group B' Police Services and Group A posts in Indian Railway Protection Force Service.
Men -160 cm.
Women- 145 cm.
Transgender-145 cm.
$The following relaxed minimum height is prescribed in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and to races such as Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland Tribal etc. whose average height is distinctly lower.
Women-148 cm.
Men -150 cm.
Transgender-148 cm"
6. He further submitted that the applicant submitted representation to DoPT and UPSC and no corrective steps have been taken up. So also in year 2022 respondents denied IRMS and in 2024 despite having qualified for IPS rejected her for IPS in an arbitrary manner which is violative of Regulation 8 (3). So far year 2022 till date Appellate Medical Board has not given any finding and report has not been uploaded on CSE plus portal. Page 6 of 12 7
7. He further submitted that the applicant has been denied relaxation of height norms under Regulation 8(3), Appendix-Ill of Regulation and illegally denied appointment in IPS and CSMB failed to consider valid documents and denied life time service allocation due to misconstruction of Regulation 8 (3) of Appendix-Ill of Regulations. So also impugned medical report so far relates to rejecting the case of applicant for IPS on ground of height is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Therefore, he prayed for the relief in the present OA.
8. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant and relied on the reply statement filed by them. He contended that Civil Services examinations is conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, Respondent No.1) annually in accordance with the Rules of examination notified by the Commission to make recruitment to various Group 'A' & Group 'B' Services under Government of India including India Administrative Service, Indian Foreign Service and Indian Police Service.
9. He further submitted that the applicant is just a candidate and she does not have a right to dictate the terms of appointment. He further submitted that is also settled law that Rules of Examination and instructions, issued therein are binding in nature and all concerned that is the employer, the recruiting bodies, including the applicant are bound by the same. In addition, it is also settled law Page 7 of 12 8 that Court will not interpret the Rules of examination so as to prejudice the other candidate who have participated in the examination and/or relying upon the same, they accepted the rules. He further pointed out that it is title law that having participated in the examination and failed one cannot take 'U' turn and challenge Rules of Examination on whatsoever ground since she is estopped in law and held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of Judgement.
10. He further submitted on an identical issue recently the CAT, Principal Bench in OA No.864/2021, order dated 31.05.2023, has dismissed the OA. He relied on the said judgement and prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
11. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the pleadings, materials on record including the citations cited by the respective parties.
12. Thus, it is clearly mentioned in the Regulations 8 (3) of the Appendix III (as stated above) which is applicable to Indian Police Service Group "A', Group 'B' Police Service and Group 'A' post in Indian Railway Protection Force Service that the benefits of relaxed height standard is extended to candidates from the Schedule Tribe who belong to the races such Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaoni, Nagaland.
Page 8 of 12 9
13. It is very clear from the Regulation that the candidate should belong to Schedule Tribe and to the races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaoni, Nagaland to get the benefit of relaxed height standard. Therefore, it is clear that both the conditions should be satisfied. But the in the present OA, the applicant though belongs to the 'Kumaoni" races, her community falls under the Unreserved Category. Therefore, the applicant does not fulfill both the conditions so as to make her eligible to attract the benefit extendable to the candidates who belongs to Scheduled Tribes and to the races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaoni, Nagaland.
14. We also found that similar issue was considered by the CAT, Principal Bench in OA No.864/2021, order dated 31.05.2023, in the case of Rahul Kumar Meena Vs Union of India & others. In the said OA Rule 7(c) was considered and in the present OA Regulation 8 (3) is considered but both relates to height relaxation. We would like to extract the relevant portion of the judgement:
"7. In the facts of the present case, what can be safely said applying above guiding principles are that
(a) *and* has been used for the sake of reference only to highlight a footnote.
(b) Omission to use "whose average height is distinctly lower."
in Rule 7 (c) is accidental. It is permissible to supply the words "and" to give true and correct meaning to the clause, if the said word is not supplied or added to clause, the same would not only have wide reunifications but also lead to absurdity and create confusion. Interpretation contrary to the same shall diminish the intent of the party using it and that the phrase and/or has a definite meaning, that is to say in reference to the context in which it is used, Thus, determination of "age relaxation" qua ST has to be an interpretation consistent with Page 9 of 12 10 the language and the overall objectives of the Statute that is, applying the age relaxation to only those persons for races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaoni, Naga, Garhwali, etc, whose average height is distinctly lower, are entitled to a relaxation of 5 cms in the minimum height required for the IPS and not to the ST candidates belonging to other regions. This has been a consistent practice followed by the respondents over the years".
8. CONCLUSION:
8.1 In the present facts of the case, we dismiss the present OA holding that the applicant belonging to "MEENA" community in the state of Rajasthan is not entitled to height relaxation in terms of Regulation 7 (c) of All India Services Act, 1951.
15. If we apply the above said judgement to the present case, we find that applicant though belongs to the races of such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaoni, Nagaland but the applicant belongs to Unreserved Category, therefore, the applicant does not fulfill both the conditions so as to make her eligible to attract the benefit extendable to the candidates who belongs to Scheduled Tribes and to the races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaoni, Nagaland for claiming height relaxation. On this Ground the OA is deserved to be dismissed.
16. It is settled proposition of law that a candidate after participating in the selection process cannot challenge criteria laid down in the advertisement or the rules unless and until selection is made contrary to statutory provisions or the advertisement itself.A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v.
State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 has held that candidates, having taken part in the selection process Page 10 of 12 11 without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. A candidate cannot allege that selection process was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process just because selection process was not palatable to a candidate.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , (2013) 11 SCC 309, after referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, the Supreme Court did not entertain the challenge to the advertisement for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participating in the selection process. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
18. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, the Apex Court after referring to catena of judgments made an observation that having participated in the selection process without objection, precludes the candidate to challenge the process at a later stage. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, the Apex Court held that it is well settled principle that those candidates who Page 11 of 12 12 had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
19. The Apex Court in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619 has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fide on the part of the Selection Board. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1706 has clearly held that a candidate who has participated in the selection process is estopped and cannot challenge the selection process.
20. In the case in hand, the applicant duly participated in the skill test and interview. She failed to achieve the target. Having been unsuccessful, she is assailing selection process. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by afore-cited judgments. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that present OA deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed on this ground also.
21. In the above circumstance, we find that the applicant has not made out a case and failed miserably in doing so. In the result the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. All pending MAs shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (M. Swaminathan)
Member-A Member-J
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH /Neelam/
Page 12 of 12