1 2025:CGHC:37252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2691 of 2021 * - Ku. Tanisha Singh, D/o Shri Rishimuni Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village And Post Tedesara, Police Station Somani, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining the case of the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.(ii)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash / set aside the impugned merit list / waiting list (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice. 10.(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions to the respondent authorities to grant 3 opportunities to clear / pass the physical efficiency test as granted to the other candidates in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held on 04.02.2021 at 1st Bn C.A.F., Bhilai, Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.02 18:43:06 +0530 2 District Durg and may kindly be pleased to direct to include the 5 marks of National Cadet Corps (NCC) “C” certificate in the merit list as per Police Rules and Regulation Act, in the interest of justice. 10.(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions to the respondent authorities to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner as per qualified (on the basis of obtaining 130 marks as mentioned above) before completion of selection process, in the interest of justice. 10.(v) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. The facts of the present case are that the Police Headquarters, Raipur issued an Advertisement for appointment on the post of Constable in various cadres in 04 Districts including Rajnandgaon. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) as General Category female candidate. A call letter was issued for Physical Efficiency Test which was held on 04.02.2021. The petitioner secured 130 marks out of 200, 69 marks in written examination, 56 marks in Physical Efficiency Test and 05 bonus marks of National Cadet Corps “C” certificate. Result was declared and the petitioner could not qualify the examination. Thereafter she challenged the recruitment process on the ground that she was offered only 01 attempt of Physical Efficiency Test, whereas other candidates were provided 03 attempts. 3. Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the other candidates were provided 03 attempts of Physical Efficiency Test, whereas the petitioner was granted only 01 attempt. He would also contend that the petitioner is eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Constable, GD (Women), but her name has not been considered by the respondent authorities deliberately. He would contend that the petitioner secured total 130 3 marks, but as she could not secure 60% marks in Physical Efficiency Test, she was not selected. He would further contend that there was biasness in conducting Physical Efficiency Test, therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable, GD (Female). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the petitioner participated in the entire recruitment process and when she could not qualify the examination, filed this petition alleging the recruitment process. He would contend that the petitioner could not secure 60% marks in the Physical Efficiency Test, therefore, she could not be selected. He would further submit that the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted on 04.02.2021, whereas complaint was made by the petitioner on 08.03.2021. He would submit that the Physical Efficiency Test was duly participated by the petitioner and document was signed recording satisfaction. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Annexure R/1 filed by the respondents alongwith return would show that after participating in the Physical Efficiency Test, the petitioner signed it and endorsed her satisfaction. She secured 56 marks and which was less than 60% qualifying marks, therefore, she could not be selected. The Physical Efficiency Test was conducted on 04.02.2021, whereas complaint was made on 08.03.2021 after more than 01 month. The complaint made by the petitioner appears outcome of after 4 thought. The petitioner participated in the entire recruitment process and thereafter challenged it which is not permissible. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti