1 2025:CGHC:34000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2516 of 2017 1 - Bhomraj S/o Shri Vishnu Ram, Aged About 27 Years R/o. Village Parsada, Post B. Jamgaon, P. S. Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - (Deleted ) Union Of India As Per Court Order Dt. 04-03-2020. 2 - Director General, C R P F, C G O Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned undated communication (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 petitioner on the post of Constable (G.D.) treating as eligible candidate. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the joint recruitment process for the post of Constable (G.D.) in the Central Armed Police Forces, i.e. in BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, etc., pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.1.2015. He would further submit that the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category and a certificate in this regard has been issued by the Competent Authority. He would further contend that the petitioner qualified for Physical Standard Test, Physical Efficiency Test and Written Examination and thereafter, he appeared for the Medical Examination. The petitioner was medically examined on 4.6.2016 and was declared unfit. He was informed by the respondent authorities that his candidature has been rejected on the following two grounds:- (1) He failed to submit a social status certificate for the OBC category in the prescribed format; (2) Being declared medically unfit. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an appeal was preferred against the rejection on medical grounds, which has not yet been decided by the respondent authorities. With regard to the social status certificate, he would submit that the certificate was issued on 29.8.2007 and was duly submitted along with the application form. He would contend that vide the interim order dated 16.8.2017, one post of Constable has been kept reserved till the final disposal of this case. He would also submit that the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) is cryptic 3 and does not assign sufficient reasons; therefore, the said order may be quashed, and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for selection and appointment. He would also contend that immediately after 4.6.2016, the petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) for a medical examination, and he was found medically fit and a certificate was issued in this regard. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Diwan would submit that, according to the advertisement, the petitioner was required to submit a social status certificate in a particular proforma appended to the advertisement. He would further contend that the petitioner was medically examined on 4.6.2016 and was declared unfit due to defective distant vision, squint right eye, knock knee and Genu recurvatum. He would also contend that the petitioner was advised to approach the higher authorities for a review medical examination by 22.6.2016. He would also submit that the petitioner failed to place the medical certificate issued by CIMS before the respondent authorities prior to 22.6.2016, and therefore, the same could not be considered. With regard to the appeal preferred by the petitioner, he would submit that the memo of appeal does not bear any mark of receipt or mention any date, and hence it cannot be said that it was submitted immediately after 4.6.2016 or before 22.6.2016. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 4 6) Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for selection to the post of Constable (GD) under the respondents. The petitioner qualified for three three-level examinations. The petitioner was medically examined on 4.6.2016, and he was found medically unfit. Annexure-R/3 dated 4.6.2016 would show that the petitioner was advised to appear before the respondent authorities for a review medical examination by 22.6.2016. It is also stated that the petitioner could not submit medical certificates issued by a Government Specialist Medical Officer of District Level or above and place them before the respondent authorities by 22.6.2016. 7) The petitioner failed to place any documents along with the petition to establish that, pursuant to the directions in the letter dated 4.6.2016, he appeared before the respondent authorities along with the medical certificate issued by the CIMS. 8) With regard to the social status certificate, it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category. However, according to one of the conditions of the recruitment notification, the petitioner was required to submit the social status certificate in a prescribed format, i.e. Annexure-P/6. The certificate submitted by the petitioner, though issued by the Competent Authority, was not in the required format. Though the petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal against the rejection of his candidature, the memo of appeal does not bear any mark of receipt or date, and hence it cannot be relied upon. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 5 10)Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi