Petitioner, selected for CAPF, filed writ petition seeking extension to join basic training after multiple granted extensions were exhausted. Court dismissed petition citing petitioner's delay and lack of merit.
Prayer for direction to permit joining training dismissed; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAHUL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Vashishath, Advocate.
versus
..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Devender Singh, AC/CISF.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
%
O R D E R 07.12.2018
C.M. No. 51527/2018 (exemption)
W.P.(C) 13241/2018
Page 1 of 3
W.P.(C) 13241/2018
after 12th January, 2018.
Page 2 of 3
W.P.(C) 13241/2018
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2018 ss
Page 3 of 3
W.P.(C) 13241/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who could not join CAPF training within prescribed time after receiving mandatory notices can be granted an extension.
Whether the petitioner's delay in approaching the court despite receiving the order refusing further extension vitiates the procedure.
Whether there can be endless extensions of time for joining basic training.
RAHUL
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
S. MURALIDHAR
SANJEEV NARULA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
