[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Constable Harpreet Singh 107020817 vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 February, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 05.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 1606/2026
CONSTABLE HARPREET SINGH (107020817)
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohan Kumar, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, SPC and Mr.
Devendra Singh, Dy. JAG, ITBP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 7836/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1606/2026, CM APPL. 7835/2026
3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(a) To issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to set aside the impugned Inter Office Note
dated 07.01.2026 issued by Establishment Branch of
52nd Bn of ITBP vide which decision of ITBP
Directorate General (Medical) was communicated to
the petitioner."
4. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the inter-office note dated
07.01.2026 of the respondents whereby the respondents have not referred
the case of the petitioner for Review Medical Board.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner has approached Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar based on the
opinion of the Doctor of the respondents, which is at page 27 of the paper-
book and hence, the respondents now cannot take recourse to Rule 26 of the
Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Rule, 1994 Rules to state that the opinion
given by the Doctor at Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar is not in
accordance thereof.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the
case of the respondents by stating that the opinion, which has been given by
Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar is not in terms of Rule 26(3) of the
Rules, which contemplates that the petitioner upon an opinion given by a
Government Doctor not below the rank of Civil Surgeon, making a specific
mention that the doctor has taken the findings of the Medical Board into
consideration gives an opinion, in that eventuality, only the respondents can
consider referring the case of the petitioner to the Review Medical Board.
7. According to him, as the opinion is not in accordance with the Rule
26(3), the impugned inter-office note rightly rejects the request of the
petitioner for the Review Medical Board.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view
that appropriate be that the respondents shall send the opinions of the
Medical Board in respect of the petitioner to the Doctor concerned namely
Dr. Sanjay Khanna of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar to enable him to
give his opinion on the basis of those opinions of the Medical Board. The
same shall be sent within a period of four weeks from today.
9. It goes without saying that, on the receipt of the opinions of the
Medical Board relating to the petitioner, Dr. Sanjay Khanna shall give his
opinion keeping in view the requirements under Rule 26 of the Rules, within
four weeks thereafter.
10. The respondents, based on the opinion of Dr. Sanjay Khanna, shall
take a decision whether the case of the petitioner needs to be referred to the
Review Medical Board, within two weeks of the receipt of opinion from Dr.
Sanjay Khanna and then take action in accordance with law.
11. Suffice to state, till the time action in terms of our order is taken, no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the Show
Cause Notice dated 06.10.2025.
12. The petition along with pending application is disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 5, 2026/sr
