JUDGMENT The four petitioners, who are working as Class-IV employees in the Forest Department, Faizabad Division, have sought to challenge in these proceedings, the provisions of Rule 13(2) and Rule 18(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department, Lower Subordinate (Forest Guard and Wild Life Guard) Service Rules, 2015. The petitioners claim that their names appear in the final seniority list at serial numbers 3, 4, 16 and 86 respectively. By Rule 13 (2) of the Rules of 2015, it has been provided that for the purpose of promotion of candidates in service, the minimum physical standards which have been set out in Schedule-2 will be applicable. The minimum physical standards in Schedule-2 is a height of 168 cms and a chest expansion of 84 cms, insofar as is material. Rule 18 (5) again stipulates that while preparing the select list of candidates for promotion, due regard will be had to the fulfillment of minimum physical requirements which have been specified in Schedule-2. 2. At this stage, it may be necessary to note that under Schedule-3 of the Rules of 2015, a physical test has been prescribed for direct recruitment. The candidates for promotion do not have to pass a physical test but are only required to fulfill the minimum physical standards as specified in Schedule-2. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Uttar Pradesh Lower Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 1980 contained a provision, under Rule 13, for a minimum height of 163 cms, and unexpanded and expanded chest specifications of 79 and 84 cms respectively. Moreover, it has been submitted that under Appendix B of the Rules of 1980, it was clarified that no physical test would be necessary for candidates to be appointed by promotion from Class-IV. 4. The Rules of 2015, as we have noted earlier, do not provide for a physical test for promotion from Class-IV. All that the Rules specify is a requirement of physical standards in regard to the height and chest. The promotion, as has been noticed, is to be made to the post of Forest Guard. Hence, the specification of this requirement by the Rules cannot be regarded as being arbitrary or unreasonable. Ultimately, it is for the rule-making authority to determine what should be the requisite specification and it would not be possible for the Court to review the requirements which have been specified. Hence, the specification of this requirement by the Rules cannot be regarded as being arbitrary or unreasonable. Ultimately, it is for the rule-making authority to determine what should be the requisite specification and it would not be possible for the Court to review the requirements which have been specified. The requirement of height and chest as physical standards for a Forest Guard cannot be construed as arbitrary or unreasonable so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.