1 CGHC010073182026 2026:CGHC:28800 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 75 of 2026 Judgment Reserved On : 17.06.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 10.07.2026 . Roshni Kerketta W/o Nitin Minj Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 7, Police Line, Khokhrabhata, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Nava Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 492002 2 - The Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Head Quarter, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Its Chairman, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Shri Shalvik Tiwari, Advocates. For State/Res(s) : Shri Anand Dadariya, Dy AG. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. Through this Review Petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.10 18:20:55 +0530 2 this Court to review the order dated 16.01.2026 so far as it was passed in WPS No.4529 of 2023 (Roshni Kerketta vs The State of Chhattisgarh and Others). 2. WPS No.4529 of 2023 was passed along with other connected matters, WPS No.5211 of 2023 being the main case. When the case was taken up for hearing on 16.01.2026, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in all those connected petitions, the petitioners seek identical relief on the ground that although they were duly declared successful in the written examination, they were unable to participate in the Physical Proficiency Test owing to pregnancy during the pendency of the recruitment process; it was contended that the recruitment process was initiated on 23rd August, 2018 and the Physical Proficiency Test was scheduled much later, on 27th July, 2023, and during this prolonged interregnum, the petitioners got married and conceived, rendering them medically unfit to undertake the physical test at the relevant time; the petitioners, therefore, pray for deferment of the Physical Proficiency Test for a period of six months or such other reasonable time, with a further direction to permit them to appear in the Physical Proficiency Test thereafter for the posts of Subedar, Sub-Inspector (Special Branch, Radio, 3 Fingerprint, Questioned Documents, Computer and Cyber Crime) and Platoon Commander, contending that denial of such opportunity would be arbitrary and unjust in view of the exceptional circumstances arising out of pregnancy. 3. During the course of hearing on 16.01.2026, learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that the issue involved in those connected petitions have already been decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition i.e. WPS No.5051 of 2023. In the said case, the contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner was carrying pregnancy of 16 weeks, therefore, it is not possible for her to participate in the physical proficiency test. It has also been contended that a special provision has been provided for pregnant women and would pray for postponement of the physical proficiency test and also prayed for considering the representation dated 05.07.2023, which was dismissed by the coordinate Bench. Upon challenge thereto, the writ appeal was also dismissed, thereby affirming the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench; it was further submitted that no relief whatsoever was granted for extension or deferment of the Physical Proficiency Test, and in view of the finality attained by the said decisions, the present writ petitions, raising identical 4 issues and seeking the same relief, are wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 4. Upon relying upon on the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and respondents, this Court with a view that controversy raised in those batch of writ petitions is no longer res integra, as the same was already considered and conclusively decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.5051 of 2023, which was decided on 20.05.2024, wherein the writ petition was dismissed on merits and also considering that the petitioner therein preferred Writ Appeal No.450 of 2024, which was also dismissed, thereby affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge, dismissed WPS No.5211 of 2023 being the main case and linked case i.e. WPS No.4529 of 2023, which is challenged through this Review Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the issue of deferment of Physical Proficiency Test on the ground of pregnancy and another opportunity for the same was not specifically dealt with, examined, or adjudicated in WPS No.5051 of 2023. He submits that the in the said case, the Coordinate Bench has nowhere dealt with the aspect of deferment of Physical Proficiency Test on account of any candidate becoming pregnant 5 for the reason of prolonged delay caused in completion of recruitment process. However, WPS No.4529 of 2023 was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the same is identical to WPS No.5051 of 2023 which has already been considered and dismissed by Coordinate Bench setting it as a precedent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Dhanwanti Devi, reported in {(1996) 6 SCC 44} has laid down a definitive test for identifying the ratio decidendi of the judgment, which reads as under:- “9…... A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found…..” 7. He submits that applying this test to WPS No.5051 of 2023, it is evident that the ratio of that judgment was confined to the 6 following issues (a) Horizontal reservation for women- whether 30% horizontal reservation was incorrectly applied to include the post of Platoon Commander, which was expressly excluded for women candidates under the 2021 Rules; b) 5% reservation for departmental candidates- Whether the calculation of 5% horizontal reservation for police department employees was correctly applied; and (c) 10% reservation for ex-servicemen Whether the calculation of 10% horizontal reservation for ex- servicemen was correctly applied. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the judgment in WPS No. 5051/2023 was rendered in the context of a bunch of writ petitions (including WPS No. 4378/2023 and others) where the primary challenge was to the recruitment process itself specifically the methodology of calculating reservations, the transparency of results, and the alleged malafides in the selection process. The issue of pregnancy and the consequent prayer for deferment of the Physical Proficiency Test was not the subject matter of the adjudication. It was merely one of several submissions noted by the Court in the course of disposing of the bunch petitions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that term res integra, 7 as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, means: "A whole thing; a new or unopened thing. The term is applied to those points of law which have not been decided, which are untouched by dictum or decision” 10. He submits that according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "Res integra: a case or a question that has not been examined or passed upon." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue whether a woman candidate who during an unreasonably delay recruitment process is entitled to deferment of the Physical Proficiency Test has never been directly adjudicated by this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench in WPS 5051/2023 did not examine this issue on its merits; it merely noted the submission without rendering any finding. Therefore, the issue remains open and requires fresh adjudication. The impugned order also relies on Writ Appeal No. 450/2024, which affirmed the Co-ordinate Bench's order in WPS 5051/2023. It is respectfully submitted that writ appeal arose from WPS 5051/2023, which, as demonstrated above, did not decide the pregnancy/deferment issue; the Writ appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file MCC and it would be incorrect to say that the order has been affirmed by the Division 8 bench. Further, the Petitioner was not a party to either WPS 5051/2023 or Writ Appeal No. 450/2024. The principle of stare decisis applies only to the ratio decidendi of a judgment, not to obiter dicta or incidental observations. Since the pregnancy/deferment issue was not the ratio of the Co-ordinate Bench's judgment, the writ appeal permitting the petitioner therein to withdraw with liberty to file MCC cannot operate as a binding precedent on the present Petitioner. Lastly, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned order dated 16/01/2026 is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed and recalled. The Co-ordinate Bench in WPS 5051/2023 did not decide the specific issue of deferment of Physical Proficiency Test due it noted the to pregnancy; merely submission without rendering any finding. The present case involves a factually distinct and legally different issue that requires adjudication on its own merits. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it is well settled that the scope of review is very limited and review of the judgement is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in the judgement under review. In the instant review petition, there is no 9 glaring omission or a patent mistake that has crept in for review of the said order / judgement passed by this Court. It is also well settled that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. In the instant review petition, no case is made out as there is no mistake in the judgment passed by this Court, which is required to be corrected, being an error apparent on record without substituting the view formed by this Court. The error apparent on the face of record as contemplated under reviews jurisdiction must be such that it is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be searched by appreciating the entire judgement/order. It cannot be under any stretch of imagination can be said to be an error of inadvertence. Moreover, from perusal of the para 69 passed in WPS No.4378 of 2023, it makes it very clear that all the grounds by the petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions were rejected and accordingly all the writ petitions were dismissed. Meaning thereby that, the identical ground raised by one of the petitioner namely Shahana Praveen in WPS No. 5051 of 2023, was also considered and rejected, finally dismissing the aforesaid writ petition i.e. WPS No. 5051 of 2023. In view of the same the dismissal of writ petition WPS No. 10 5051 of 2023, would constitute a binding precedent in any subsequent writ petitions raising the similar / identical ground. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. From the perusal of record, it is quite evident that the State counsel failed to examine the matter meticulously and submitted that the issue involved in WPS No.4529 of 2023 has been conclusively decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition (WPS No.5051 of 2023) and writ appeal against order passed in the said case has also been dismissed and the issue of deferment of Physical Proficiency Test has already been considered and no relief thereof has been granted by the Coordinate Bench. 15. This Court relying the aforesaid submission made State counsel came to the conclusion that the issue involved in the petition (WPS No.4529 of 2023) is no longer res integra as same has been decided by Coordinate Bench. However, when the matter is being seen from the submission of counsel for the reivew petitioner, it appears that the issue with respect of prayer for delaying the Physical Proficiency Test on the ground of being pregnant during the test is yet to be decided. 11 16. It is well settled that a judgment is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for what may logically follow from the observations contained therein. Unless an issue has been consciously examined and decided, it cannot be treated as the ratio decidendi of the judgment so as to constitute a binding precedent. Merely noticing a submission without returning any finding thereon does not amount to adjudication of the issue. 17. The order dated 16.01.2026 dismissing WPS No.4529 of 2023 proceeded on the premise that the controversy raised therein had already been concluded by the decision rendered in WPS No.5051 of 2023 and the order passed in Writ Appeal No.450 of 2024. However, as noticed hereinabove, the specific question relating to deferment of the Physical Proficiency Test on account of pregnancy during the pendency of an unusually prolonged recruitment process does not appear to have been examined or decided in the said proceedings. Consequently, the assumption that the issue was no longer res integra is not borne out from the record. 18. The jurisdiction of review is undoubtedly limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction. At the same time, where a judgment proceeds on an erroneous assumption that a particular 12 issue stands concluded by a binding precedent, whereas such issue has, in fact, never been adjudicated, the resulting error constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 19. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) vs. Vanashakti and Anr., in Review Petition (C ) @ Diary No.41929 of 2025, held in paragraph 8, which reads as under:- 8. The balanced approach, in the wake of admitted violations, taken in Common Cause & Alembic, have been completely lost sight of, by the judgment under review. The judgment under review, with due respect did not look into the aspects of the power conferred under the Environment Protection Act and the legal principles regarding an undertaking given in derogation of the statutory provisions. The judgment under review failed to notice the decision in Electrosteel in its entirety and its attention was not drawn to Pahwa and D. Swamy. It is one thing to find Electrosteel, Pahwa and D. Swamy per- incuriam in the original proceeding, which would have restrained a review on that ground; but quite another to reject the prayer for review on the ground that though not noticed or referred to, those decisions are per incuriam; which still is a valid ground for review for not having been considered. I fully concur with the opinion of the Learned Chief Justice of India and find the review to be not only warranted, but imperative and expedient. 13 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the review petitioner has succeeded in demonstrating that while dismissing WPS No.4529 of 2023, this Court proceeded on an incorrect factual and legal premise that the controversy raised by the petitioner had already been decided by the Coordinate Bench, whereas the same was not decided. Since the specific issue raised in the writ petition requires independent consideration on its own merits, the order dated 16.01.2026, insofar as it relates to WPS No.4529 of 2023 and all other connected matters, deserves to be recalled. 21. It is noteworthy to mention that when multiple aggrieved parties are affected by a common order, against which when a review petition filed by a single petitioner succeeds, then in that situation, the common order is altered directly benefiting all connected co- parties regardless of the fact that other co-parties did not file review petition. 22. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. The order dated 16.01.2026 is recalled which dismisses WPS No.4529 of 2023 (Roshni Kerketta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). WPS No.4529 of 2023 along with all connected matters is restored to its original number for consideration and adjudication on its own merits in accordance with law before appropriate Bench. 14 23. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claims raised in the writ petition, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be urged by the parties before the appropriate Bench. 24. The Review Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 17.06.2026 10.07.2026 ------ 10.07.2026