Delhi High Court
Jogi Anil Kumar vs Indian Coast Guard & Ors on 11 June, 2025
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.06.2025
+ W.P.(C) 8419/2025 & CM APPL. 36638/2025 (direction)
JOGI ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Deeksha Prakash, Advocate.
versus
INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC with Mr. Rudra
Paliwal, GP with Mr. Rattan Negi,
Indian Coast Guard for UOI.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has sought following reliefs as extracted from prayer
clause:
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting
aside/holding the action and reasoning of the Respondents,
as communicated vide the Impugned Result dated
03.06.2025 declared on the Petitioner's login portal
whereby the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected as
being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and
21 of the Constitution of India, 1950;
b) Consequentially, issue an appropriate writ, order, or
direction directing the Respondents to induct the Petitioner
from Stage - II of the ongoing recruitment process for the
02/2025 batch;
W.P.(C) 8419/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 18:54:04
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
19:18:03
c) Allow the present Writ Petition with exemplary
compensation, costs and litigation expenses in favor of the
Petitioner and/or
d) Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Broadly speaking, candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the
computerised system in the process of recruitment as he failed to select stage
II centre by 28.05.2025 at 2300 hours, which was taken as his unwillingness
for stage II. Apart from that failure to upload the desired stage II centre, on
merits, case of the petitioner is yet to be tested in the process of recruitment.
In such circumstances, the question before us is as to whether on account of
failure to upload the desired stage II centre, the petitioner be deprived of an
opportunity to participate in the recruitment process.
3. Learned counsel for respondents accompanied with Mr. Rattan Negi
(through videoconferencing) accepts notice and fairly admits that the
petitioner may be granted another opportunity to rectify the error, as not
everyone is well-conversant with the computerised systems. However, the
only anxiety expressed on behalf of the respondent is that it may be not
treated as a precedent.
4. Accordingly, with consent of both sides, the petition is allowed,
granting opportunity to the petitioner to participate in stage II of the
recruitment process and for the necessary uploading/selecting venue,
handholding assistance shall be provided by the respondents. As requested,
W.P.(C) 8419/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 18:54:26
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
19:18:03
it is made clear that this order is passed with consent of both sides and shall
not be treated as a judicial precedent.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11
18:54:45 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGE
TEJAS KARIA
JUDGE
JUNE 11, 2025/ab
W.P.(C) 8419/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
