This writ petition by a CISF probationer seeking a direction to join training and set aside a lapse letter was dismissed. The Court found no justifiable excuse for multiple delays in joining despite extensions granted, rejecting the petitioner's claim of illness absence as unsubstantiated reason for exceeding the deadline.
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.
$~34
PAWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aditya Vashishath, Advocate.
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Ruchi Jain, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 11.01.2019
C.M. APPL.902/2019 (Exemption)
C.M. APPL.901/2019
W.P.(C) 13728/2018
W.P.(C) 13728/2018 Page 1 of 3
received the offer letter dated 14th December 2017 asking him to join basic training at the NISA Hyderabad on 12th January 2018.
W.P.(C) 13728/2018 Page 2 of 3
claiming that he received a letter only on 15th May 2018, the Petitioner wrote another letter dated 17th May 2018 for the fourth time seeking extension. This was obviously rejected by the Respondents by the impugned order dated 20th June 2018.
S.MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 11, 2019 tr
W.P.(C) 13728/2018 Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the dismissal of the petitioner's request for extension to join CISF training.
Whether there was justifiable excuse for the petitioner to fail to join by the extended deadline of 15 March 2018.
Whether the impugned order of the Respondents rejecting the Petitioner's plea must be set aside.
Pawan
Union of India
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
