Petitioners challenged referral of their cases to the CISF Standing Screening Committee. Relying on a coordinate bench order in similar circumstances, the court disposed of the petition directing the Committee to decide within eight weeks, with reasons for any unsuitability finding.
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.
$~40
BISWAJIT GHOSH & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mandeep Baisala and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ......Respondent Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms. Akansha Choudhary, Ms. Shweta Shandlya and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advs. for UOI with Mr. H.K. Sourastiya, AC and Mr. Atul Kumar, SI (CISF)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
% 01.04.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner has moved this Court by means of the present writ petition, challenging the decision of the respondent to refer the petitioners’ case to the Standing Screening Committee of the Central Industrial Security Force1 .
2. Mr. Mandeep Baisala, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to an order dated 10 February 2025 passed by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Waman Mahendra Navnath v UOI2 in which this Court, in similar circumstances, has directed the Standing Screening Committee to take a decision within
1 “CISF” hereinafter
2 MANU/DE/0978/2025 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 4029/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 19:12:01
Page 1 of 2
four weeks.
3. Ms. Akansha Choudhary, learned Counsel for the respondent prays that, in the present case, the respondents have to requisition information from outside and that, therefore, they may be given eight weeks.
4. She also submits that the next training schedule, which is also tentative, is also only after six months.
5. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the Standing Screening Committee take a decision on the petitioners’ application positively within a period of eight weeks from today. Ordinarily, no extension of time would be granted.
6. In case any of the petitioners is found unsuitable for appointment, the respondent would give reasons for the decision and communicate it to the concerned petitioner.
7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 1, 2025 /aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 4029/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 19:12:01
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Standing Screening Committee of CISF should decide on the petitioners' applications within a stipulated time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Waman Mahendra Navnath v UOIRelied on¶2
MANU/DE/0978/2025
Biswajit Ghosh & Ors.
Union of India
C. Hari Shankar
Ajay Digpaul
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
