Delhi High Court
Pankaj Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 October, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
+ W.P.(C) 13854/2024
PANKAJ YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Sanjana
Samor and Mr. Yash Yadav,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, SPC with
Mr. Sarvesh P. Shrivastava,
Adv. and Sh. RPS Sambhyal,
AC and SI Atul Sen, CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
NAVIN CHAWLA, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 58004/2024-Ex.
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13854/2024, CM APPL. 58003/2024
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
and/or any other appropriate writ of the like
nature and/or directions to quash and set
aside the impugned letter dt. 23.04.2024
issued by the Respondent no. 3 whereby the
Respondent no. 3 mechanically referred the
candidature of the Petitioner to the Standing
Screening Committee solely for the reason that
the name of Petitioner reflected in some FIR
ignoring the factum that the Court of Ld.
Additional Civil Judge (C.D.), Court No.
4/A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad in case no. 11577/2021
has acquitted the Petitioner in case FIR no.
751/2021 vide Acquittal Order dt. 18.03.2024
and;
ii. A writ of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate Writ of the like nature and/or
directions to the Respondents to permit the
Petitioner to continue to undergo ongoing
training in terms of the Petitioner's joining
letter dated 28.02.2024 for the post of Head
Constable (Ministerial) in CISF and;
iii. A writ of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate Writ of the like nature and/or
directions to the Respondents to grant all
consequential benefits including seniority on
notional basis to the Petitioner."
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for
the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Central Industrial
Security Force (in short, 'CISF'), and after undergoing the entire
selection process, was issued a joining letter dated 28.02.2024.
However, when he reported at the Regional Training Centre,
Arakkonam, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, he was not allowed to join the
training. Instead, he was referred to the Standing Screening
Committee, by an Order dated 23.04.2024, as there was an FIR No.
751/2021 in which he had been named as an accused.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said FIR
was registered on 25.07.2021 due to a minor scuffle amongst
neighbours; the dispute was immediately settled between them; and in
fact, by a Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge (C.D.), Court No. 4/A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad in
Case no. 11577/2021, the petitioner has already been acquitted of the
said charges.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
Standing Screening Committee may take long to consider the case of
the petitioner and in the meantime, the petitioner may be gravely
prejudiced by not being permitted to join the training.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on
advance notice, submits that the petitioner has not disclosed whether
he has submitted the documents with respect to his acquittal in the
abovementioned FIR before the Standing Screening Committee.
8. Be that as it may, considering the contents of the petition and
having considered the submissions made, it is directed that the
respondents shall consider the present petition as a representation of
the petitioner, and the Standing Screening Committee shall decide the
same within a period of 10 days from today.
9. The respondents, while considering the representation of the
petitioner, must keep in view the nature of the allegations against the
petitioner in the said FIR and the fact that the petitioner has already
been acquitted in the said case.
10. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed by the Standing
Screening Committee within the above period and shall be
communicated to the petitioner.
11. In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the
respondents, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, in
accordance with law.
12. The petition is disposed of with the above directions.
13. Dasti.
(NAVIN CHAWLA)
JUDGE
(SHALINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 3, 2024/ss/B
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
