WP(C) 1945/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saikia, learned CGC. The petitioner who is a candidate for appointment in the CRPF (CT/GD), h as made a grievance against her non-selection. According to her, although she co uld qualify in the selection, but the respondents illegally deprived her of appo intment. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to the particular inst ruction in the employment notice in terms of which medical examination of the ca ndidates is to be done after inclusion of their names in the merit list. Thereaf ter depending upon the medical examination, final select list is to be drawn cat egory wise. In the instant case, the petitioner was called for medical examination a nd she was declared fit. Thus, referring to the said instruction, it is the case of the petitioner that had she not been selected in the merit list she would no t have been called for medical examination. She having cleared the medical exami nation, the respondents ought to have offered her appointment. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the written examination was held on 28.11.2010 followed by medical e xamination on 29.01.2011. It has also been held that the petitioner got 42 marks in written test. As per merit list, the last female candidate who was offered a ppointment secured 44 marks. Thus, according to the respondents, since the petit ioner got the marks below the marks secured by the last selected candidate, she could not be appointed. The respondents have indicated the percentage of cut off marks for the p ost of CT/GD which is 35% for the general category candidate and 33% for the SC/ ST/OBC candidates. The petitioner having qualified in the written/physical test, was called for medical test. But judging the merit position in reference to the vacancy po sition, it was found that the last candidate who secured 44 marks could be appoi nted. Thus, the petitioner who secured 42 marks could not be appointed. In view of the above, no direction can be issued to the respondents to a ppoint the petitioner. consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.