1 CGHC010075932025 2026:CGHC:28698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1465 of 2025 Geeta Sahu W/o Sunil Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And P.O. Singhola District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretariat Department Of Home Affairs, C.G.O. Complex New Delhi, Delhi. 2 - Inspector General Of The Madhya Pradesh Sector Of The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Centre Campus, CRPF, Bangarasia, Bhopla (M.P.) 3 - Inspector General Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Group Centre, Hingna Road, Nagpur Maharashtra. 4 - Inspector General CRPF Chhattisgarh HQ Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate For Respondent/ UoI : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.10 19:21:53 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her to the post of Paramedical Staff and also seeks compensation on account of her non- selection in the final select list. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Paramedical Staff, the petitioner participated in the selection process. She successfully qualified the Computer Based Test (CBT) and was thereafter called for the Skill Test. He further submits that during the medical examination, the authorities found that the petitioner was pregnant and, therefore, declared her temporarily unfit with a direction to appear for the Review Medical Examination (RME) after six weeks from the termination of pregnancy. Learned counsel further contends that after the termination of pregnancy, the petitioner approached the respondents along with the requisite fitness certificate, but despite the same, she was not selected for the post. Hence, the present petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that during the medical examination, the petitioner was declared temporarily unfit on account of pregnancy, as her urine pregnancy test was found positive. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application along with a fitness certificate after six 3 weeks of her normal delivery. She submits that when her case was considered for determination of her merit position, it was found that she had not secured the requisite cut-off marks for selection. By referring to Annexures R/5 and R/6, learned counsel submits that the petitioner secured only 57 marks, whereas the cut-off marks for the OBC category were 65 marks. Since her name did not find place in the final merit list of selected candidates, she was rightly not offered appointment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the selection process and was declared temporarily unfit during the initial medical examination on account of pregnancy, whereafter she was advised to undergo the Review Medical Examination (RME). Thereafter, her candidature was considered on the basis of her merit position. However, it was found that the petitioner had secured only 57 marks, whereas the prescribed cut-off marks for the OBC category were 65 marks. Consequently, she did not find place in the final merit list of selected candidates and was, therefore, not entitled to appointment. The contention of the petitioner that no communication regarding her non-selection was issued is also without substance, as the communication dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure R/5) clearly informed the petitioner that her name did not find place in the final merit list and, therefore, no Detailed Medical Examination (DME) was required in her case. 4 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal right to seek appointment or compensation. Since the petitioner did not secure the requisite cut-off marks prescribed for her category, the action of the respondents in not selecting her cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No case for interference is made out. 7. As an upshot, the writ petition sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar