[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Bicky Kumar Mahato vs Union Of India & Anr on 19 March, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~114
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3494/2026
BICKY KUMAR MAHATO .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mandeep Baisala, Mr. Dhananjay
Singh, Mr. Kavesh Bidhuri, Mr.
Sourabh Soni, Mr. Atal Singh,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Bhavya Tyagi, SPC & Ms. Disha
Choudhary, GP (UOI), alongwith Mr.
Athurv, Inspector.
Mr Vinod Sawant Law Officer, 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. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:-
"i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the impugned Review Medical
Examination Report dated 28.11.2025 issued by Respondent
No. 2, whereby the Petitioner has been declared medically
unfit for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the
Central Armed Police Forces;
ii. Issue further directions to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
conduct a fresh and fair medical re-examination of the
Petitioner, taking into consideration the medical report
dated 20.01.2026 issued by AIIMS, Deoghar;
iii. Pass any such other or further order(s) in favour of the
Petitioner as deemed fit in the given facts and circumstances
and in the interest of justice."
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.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 19, 2026
M
