Newsroom
A female police applicant who was rejected for failing to meet minimum height requirements has won her case in the Supreme Court, after judges said a renewed ID card was “new evidence” despite her height from head to toe still falling short during a physical exam.
According to local media, a woman who took a police and fire fighter exam and ranked 384 out of 491 successful test takers was allowed to defer the rest of her physical evaluations due to pregnancy.
But when she showed up in 2018 to complete her physical exams, including sports activities and height measurement, she was found to be 1.591m tall at first take and 1.589m at second take (both 5.21 feet), which was lower than the absolutel minimum of 1.60m.
The woman was also said to have obtained a renewed ID card issued by state authorities, with staff at a Citizen Services Center listing her official height at 1.62m.
Police lawyers argued in a letter that actual height was reflected in the true measurement head to toe, with bare feet, adding no shoes or socks were acceptable during the procedure
When the woman’s lawyer took her case to the police recruitment council, the officer chairing the committee told the attorney that no measurement could be acceptable except within specific parameters and procedures.
“The issue is not a dispute of information printed on the candidate’s ID card but rather the faithful adherence to current legislation and all the provisions that come along,” the council said.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the height listed on the new ID card was “new evidence” provided by a state agency in the Republic of Cyprus.
“This is an official document of the Republic of Cyprus in which the height of the plaintiff was different from that listed by the defendants,” the Supreme Court judges said.
Police lawyers argued in a letter that actual height was reflected in the true measurement head to toe, with bare feet, adding no shoes or socks were acceptable during the procedure.
But the Supreme Court bench said there was nothing to suggest height at the Citizens Services Center was not measured with bare feet as well, siding with the position of the plaintiff that the woman’s true height had not been established due to “inadequate investigation” that failed to reconcile differences in measurement.
The Supreme Court ruled that the decision by the police recruitment council to deny the woman a spot in the force was invalid due to not carrying out a full investigation following new evidence in the case.
