[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Aryan Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 April, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 01.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 4191/2026
ARYAN YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mrs. Manika V.
Aggarwal, Mr. Vikrant Chawla, Mr.
Mayank Chauhan snd Mr. Prabhav
Pachauri, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Sushil kumar Pandey, SPC with
Mr.Aman kr Pandey &Mr.Pradip
Sharma, Advs.
Mr. Ajay Pal Law Officer Insp.
Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav
CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4191/2026 & CM APPL. 20464/2026
3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction quashing the findings of the Detailed
Medical Examination dated 21.11.2025 and the Review
Medical Examination dated 24.11.2025, whereby the
Petitioner was declared medically unfit on the ground of
being allegedly „overweight‟;
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction, commanding the Respondents to
constitute a fresh and independent Medical Board at a
reputed Government/Army Hospital in Delhi to conduct a
re-examination of the Petitioner's physical standards,
particularly his weight;
c. Issue a further Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the
Respondents to consider the Petitioner for appointment to
the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs Examination-2025,
with all consequential benefits, if he is found fit by the
independent Medical Board.
4. Concedingly, the petitioner is a resident of Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh
and he is challenging the findings of the Detailed Medical Examination
dated 21.11.2025 and Review Medical Examination dated 24.11.2025 which
were admittedly held in Pune, Maharashtra. Hence merely because Staff
Selection Commission is situated in Delhi, the petitioner could not have
approached this Court.
5. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely
upon the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to contend that
the Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition has granted liberty
to the petitioner to approach the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the
matter. It is his submission that in view thereof, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
6. We are still of the view that the same shall not make the petitioner
approach this Court. Moreso, for the reason that no cause of action has
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
7. In view of the aforesaid conclusion by us, inasmuch as the Medical
Boards were held at Pune, Maharashtra, the remedy for the petitioner is to
approach the Court, which shall have the territorial jurisdiction over Pune.
8. Our attention has been drawn to Clause 18 of the notification issued
by the Staff Selection Commission wherein the following has been
stipulated:
"18. Court's Jurisdiction: Any dispute in regard to
this Recruitment Examination will be subject to courts
having jurisdiction over the place of the Regional Office
concerned of the Commission where the candidate has
appeared for the Computer-Based Examination."
9. From the above also, it is clear that the dispute with regard to the
recruitment/examination shall be subject to the courts having jurisdiction
over the place of Regional Office concerned of the Staff Selection
Commission where the candidate has appeared for the Computer Based
Examination.
10. Mr. Aggarwal concedes that the petitioner had appeared in the
Computer Based Examination at Pune, Maharashtra.
11. A similar issue had come up before us for adjudication in W.P.(C)
No.3494/2026 titled Bicky Kumar Mahato v. Union of India & Anr. We
had decided the same on 19.03.2026 and dismissed the petition on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction by stating in paragraph 2 onwards, as under:
"2. Suffice to state that the challenge in this case is
to the conclusion drawn by the Review Medical
Examination Board (RMEB), which found the petitioner
to be unfit for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD)
with Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).
3. On a pointed query to the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to whether this petition is maintainable
when the petitioner is resident of West Bengal and the
subject matter of the challenge is in respect of the RMEB
report, which was undertaken at Durgapur, West Bengal,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Davender Kumar v.
Union of India & Others, 2018:DHC:1227-DB to
contend that since the Head Office of the respondent is
situated in Delhi, this Court will have the jurisdiction.
4. On identical issue, this Court in the case of Anand
Kumar v. Union of India & Others, 2025:DHC:206-DB
has held as under:-
"4. Apart from the fact that the Impugned Order
dismissing the petitioner from service has not
been issued at Delhi, it is trite law that "cause of
action" means a bundle of facts which is
necessary for the petitioner to prove in order to
succeed in the proceedings. It does not completely
depend upon a character of the relief prayed for
by the petitioner. A small part of the cause of
action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of
a High Court may not be considered as a
determinative factor compelling the High Court to
decide the matter on its own merits. In such a
case, the doctrine of forum non conveniens shall
apply."
5. We are unable to accept such a plea of the learned
counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that
bundle of facts which need to be determined while
considering to grant the prayers as made by the
petitioner is only in respect of the report of RMBE.
Concedingly, the report was drawn at Durgapur, West
Bengal.
6. In the facts of the case, we state that no cause of action
has arisen for petitioner to approach this Court. Liberty
shall be with the petitioner to approach the Court having
the jurisdiction. The petition is closed."
(emphasis supplied)
12. For parity of reasons and also for additional reason in view of Clause
18 of the notification, we hold this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to
entertain this writ petition. We grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the
Court which shall have the territorial jurisdiction over Pune, Maharashtra for
ventilating grievance against DME/RME.
13. In view of the above, the petition along with pending application is
dismissed with liberty as above.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 01, 2026
ab
