JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. The Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, “the PSC”) has come up before this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P4 order dated 20.07.2023 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) in OA(EKM) No.175 of 2023, whereby the PSC was directed to cause re-measurement of height of respondents 1 & 2/applicants. 2. The issue involved in this case is in respect of the physical measurement prescribed by the PSC for appointment to the post of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion. 3. The appellant herein (PSC) was the first respondent; respondents 1 & 2 herein were the applicants; and the third respondent herein was the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The applicants participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Police Constable in Armed Police Battalion pursuant to Annex.A1 notification. They turned successful in the preliminary and main tests and found eligible to appear in the Physical Measurement and Physical Efficiency Test. However, they were not included in the ranked list since they did not qualify the physical measurement test. The height prescribed in Annex.A1 notification was a minimum of 168 cm. The height measured in respect of the applicants during the selection process is as follows; Cat.No & Post Date Venue Recorded Height for Akhil EK Recorded Height of Suneesh P. Height specified for the post in cm Police Constable (APB)-MSP (Cat.No.530/ 2019) in Police Dept 27.10.2022 for [Akhil E.K] 25.10.2022 For (Suneesh P.) MSP Parade Ground Malappuram 167.5 167 168 Police Constable (APB)-MSP (Cat No.530/2019) in Police Dept 04.01.2023 [For Re-measurement KPSC District Office Malappuram 167.8 167.6 168 Since they fell short of the required height, i.e., 168 cm, they were found physically unfit in the physical measurement test. On filing appeal, they were allowed to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test provisionally, as unfit appeal candidates. They qualified the Physical Efficiency Test by passing five out of eight items and were called for re-measurement test at the KPSC District Office, Malappuram. Physical re-measurement test was conducted on 04.01.2023 and the height of the applicants was measured 167.8 cm and 167.6 cm respectively and hence, they were found physically unfit. Out of 217 unfit appeal candidates, who were called for physical re-measurement, only 18 were found physically fit. Physical re-measurement test was conducted on 04.01.2023 and the height of the applicants was measured 167.8 cm and 167.6 cm respectively and hence, they were found physically unfit. Out of 217 unfit appeal candidates, who were called for physical re-measurement, only 18 were found physically fit. Aggrieved by this, the applicants approached the Tribunal; and the Tribunal, after elaborate consideration of the issue, directed the PSC to cause re-measurement of height of the applicants within a period of one month. It is challenging this, the PSC has come up before this Court. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2/applicants, and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submitted that the candidates are supposed to meet all the requirements pertaining to the post; and since the applicants did not satisfy the physical standards required for the post, they cannot be considered as fit for the post of Police Constable. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the previous ranked list published by the PSC, both the applicants were included in the year 2019-2020 and such inclusion would show that they are having the requisite physical measurements including height. 7. Admittedly, the selection process is totally within the domain of the PSC. On the occasion of the first measurement, applicants 1 & 2 did not qualify the required height of 168 cm, which was measured 167.5 cm and 167 cm respectively, and on re-measurement, it was 167.8 cm and 167.6 cm respectively. The first measurement of the first and second applicants was on 27.10.2022 and 25.10.2022 respectively; and thereafter, on appeal, re-measurement was conducted on 04.01.2023, i.e., after 2½ months. On re-measurement, it is found that there is difference between the measurements taken. It is note worthy that the physical test is done after getting qualified in the preliminary and main tests conducted by the PSC. 8. On re-measurement, it is found that there is difference between the measurements taken. It is note worthy that the physical test is done after getting qualified in the preliminary and main tests conducted by the PSC. 8. To test physical efficiency, the following events are conducted; Sl.No. Events One Star Standards 1 100 Meters Run 14 Seconds 2 High Jump 132.20 cm 3 Long Jump 457.20 cm 4 Putting the Shot (7264 gm) 609.60 cm 5 Throwing the cricket ball 6096 cm 6 Rope climbing (using hands only) 365.80 cm 7 Pull up or chinning 8 times 8 1500 meters run 5 minutes & 44 seconds The candidates must qualify any five out of the above eight events. After a very hard and tough Physical Efficiency Test, when their physical measurements were taken, it was found that they fell short of required height. However, no explanation has been given by the PSC as to the difference between the first and second measurements. Moreover, it is to be noted that in an earlier ranked list in the year 2020, both the applicants were included in the list, finding that they are having requisite physical measurements including height. When the height was measured and re-measured in 2022 and 2023, there was inconsistency in the measurements taken by the PSC. When height measurement was taken in 2022, it was 167.5 cm for the first applicant and 167 for the second applicant. On re-measurement, the first applicant fell short of 0.2 cm in height and the second applicant fell short of 0.4cm from the required height of 168 cm. 9. According to the PSC, physical re measurement is taken by a Board headed by a member of PSC as Board Chairman, and two other members, viz., an official not below the rank of an Under Secretary of the Commission and an Associate Professor/Assistant Professor of Physical Education; and further, standardized equipments are used for taking physical measurements, which are taken with utmost care. Whatsoever, as far as the applicants are concerned, there is inconsistency in the measurements taken without any proper reasoning. According to the PSC, standardized equipments are used for taking measurements and the difference, if any, occurred is only due to the method, in which the measurements were taken. Whatsoever, as far as the applicants are concerned, there is inconsistency in the measurements taken without any proper reasoning. According to the PSC, standardized equipments are used for taking measurements and the difference, if any, occurred is only due to the method, in which the measurements were taken. However, no proper explanation is forthcoming from the PSC as to the difference in the height measurements taken, more so, when the applicants were included in the previous list of 2020. The height measurement is a relevant criteria for qualifying the physical test, which should be taken in a proper manner with utmost care and due diligence. In this case, since the applicants fell short of required height in the original measurement, they filed appeal, and in appeal, re-measurement was conducted, wherein there was difference from the original measurement, which reflects the inconsistency in the height measurements taken. 10. Hence, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also, considering the fact that there is inconsistency in the height measurement taken by the PSC in respect of the applicants, which is a negligible difference from the height specified for the post, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed.