The Director General Central Reserve Police Force CRPF Recruitment Board and others SAMRAT GHOSH vs Raju Sarkar and others — MAT/2223/2025

Case under Indian Police Act ,1861 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 22nd May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0587492025

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

23rd December 2025

e-Filing Number

16-12-2025

Filing Number

MAT/2277/2025

Filing Date

16-12-2025

Registration No

MAT/2223/2025

Registration Date

17-12-2025

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

Indian Police Act ,1861 Section 226

Petitioner(s)

The Director General Central Reserve Police Force CRPF Recruitment Board and others SAMRAT GHOSH

Respondent(s)

Raju Sarkar and others

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS

23-12-2025

FOR ADMISSION

Orders

22-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD,HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS

The court disposed of the CRPF's appeal as infructuous after the Supreme Court settled identical height measurement issues in a related case. Following the Apex Court's ruling that candidates measuring 169.5 cm or above cannot be disqualified for insufficient height (with 0.5 cm decimal ignored and rounded up), CRPF's advocate conceded that none of the respondent candidates fell below this threshold, eliminating the case's merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court disposed of the CRPF's appeal as infructuous after the Supreme Court settled identical height measurement issues in a related case. Following the Apex Court's ruling that candidates measuring 169.5 cm or above cannot be disqualified for insufficient height (with 0.5 cm decimal ignored and rounded up), CRPF's advocate conceded that none of the respondent candidates fell below this threshold, eliminating the case's merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case