The Director General Central Reserve Police Force Recruitment Branch and another SAMRAT GHOSH vs Hamida Khatun and others — MAT/2262/2025
Case under Indian Police Act ,1861 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 22nd May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0584102025
Next Hearing
05th January 2026
e-Filing Number
15-12-2025
Filing Number
MAT/2251/2025
Filing Date
15-12-2025
Registration No
MAT/2262/2025
Registration Date
19-12-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 16 )
Judicial Branch
STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Director General Central Reserve Police Force Recruitment Branch and another SAMRAT GHOSH
Respondent(s)
Hamida Khatun and others
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-01-2026 | BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL |
Orders
The court disposed of the CRPF's appeal as infructuous after the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Union of India v. Atul Kumar Verma settled the identical controversy. Applying the Supreme Court's height measurement rounding rule (0.5cm margins rounded up), respondent Hamida Khatun—measured at 156.5cm against the 157cm minimum requirement—qualified and could not be disqualified on height grounds. The 50-day delay in filing was also condoned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court disposed of the CRPF's appeal as infructuous after the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Union of India v. Atul Kumar Verma settled the identical controversy. Applying the Supreme Court's height measurement rounding rule (0.5cm margins rounded up), respondent Hamida Khatun—measured at 156.5cm against the 157cm minimum requirement—qualified and could not be disqualified on height grounds. The 50-day delay in filing was also condoned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts