Some more interesting height fluctuations within a period of a year.
It's April 1963. The Beatles have donned their trademark suits and shoes. These are of course, iconic now. But as seen , we have a Paul McCartney that is quite taller than George Harrison and John Lennon. And when we look at the heels of their shoes (provided beneath the April 1963 photo) we see that both John and George are wearing a higher heel than both Ringo and Paul. It suggests Paul would be quite taller than them, even if they weren't in heels.
In the leather jacket 1962 photo, it's very obvious who the tallest is. It's Paul. But then again he's wearing a higher heel. Going from 1962 (where he'd be approximately 20) and 1963, where he's almost 21, it's possible there would be some height growth. But if he's already taller than John and George at 20 in heels, and still taller than them in 1963, in a shorter heel, it would be pretty safe to assume he's done growing. And John, at 22 and 23 years old (respectively) is pretty much done. That's the height he's going to remain at until (if given opportunity) he becomes a very old man.
Then how do we justify the height discrepancies in 1962 in the other photos. Or even the one in March 1963. One way would be to take a "lay of the land" and see if there's a decline in the ground that provides those height discrepancies. To be honest, looking at that lay, it doesn't justify it. Especially in the case of Paul standing close to George in the outside photo. Ringo in heels justifies his height growth. That's explainable. If Ringo gets taller, it means he's wearing heels. Very easy. But Paul going up and down, regardless of the shoe cannot be justified. Especially when you go from a leather jacketed, high heeled boy who is quite taller than George & John in a shorter heel, to a person in a suit who is the same height as George & John when he's outside, to a Beatle iconic suit Paul who is taller than George & John even when THEY ARE wearing heels.
Up and down, round and round we go.