Delhi High Court

Rajnikant vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 May, 2025

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                    $~35
                    *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +       W.P.(C) 5767/2025
                            RAJNIKANT                                           .....Petitioner
                                                  Through: Ms. Sahila Lamba and Mr.
                                                  Mukul Kumar Sinha, Advocates

                                                  versus

                            UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                 .....Respondents
                                          Through:    Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC With
                                          Arnav Mittal GP and Mr. Akash Mishra,
                                          Advocates

                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
                                                 JUDGMENT(ORAL)

                    %                               02.05.2025

                    C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks diversion of unfilled direct recruit vacancies of the post of Assistant Commandant (Engineer) in the Sashastra Seema Bal, to the promotion quota. Ms. Sahila Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that these vacancies have been lying unfilled for almost ten years and therefore, no public interest is served by keeping them unfilled.

2. She has placed reliance on a judgment dated 31 August 2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP (C) 5810/20201.

1 Kulwant Rai Sharma v UOI

WP(C) 5767/2025

3. To the submissions of Ms. Lamba, Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC had submitted that the decision in Kulwant Rai Sharma was distinguishable as in that case the diversion was from IPS and Ex. Army cadre to the BSF cadre.

4. We do not express any opinion on whether it constitute a legitimate basis for distinction.

5. We deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon, within a period of six weeks from today and communicate the decision to the petitioner as well as to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Needless to say, if the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner's right in that regard would remain preserved.

7. The petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

MAY 2, 2025/yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any

WP(C) 5767/2025