Disposed¶24

Ritesh Kumar v. Union of India

Delhi HC4 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/9009/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 9009/2025 & CM APPL. 38400/2025, decided 04.07.2025 by C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, JJ. Keywords: CISF Standing Screening Committee; referral of case; eight-week timeline; appointment suitability; reasons for rejection; Waman Mahendra Navnath v UOI; MANU/DE/0978/2025; Union of India; oral order; writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to ensure that the Standing Screening Committee takes a decision on the petitioner's application within eight weeks, ordinarily without extension; if the petitioner is found unsuitable, reasons are to be given and communicated to him. ¶24

Ritesh Kumar Vs Union of India — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9009/2025 & CM APPL. 38400/2025

¶4

RITESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Mandeep Baisala, Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Mr. Vivek Kumar and Mr. Vishwanath, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Vats, SPC along with Mr. Gopesh Jindal GP, Mr. Krishan Das, DC, CISF and Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, CISF.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶10

ORDER (ORAL)

¶11

% 04.07.2025

¶12

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶13

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 1 Industrial Security Force .

¶14

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

¶15

1 “CISF” hereinafter

¶16

2 MANU/DE/0978/2025 Signature Not Verified

¶17

Signed By:AAKANSHAW.P.(C) 9009/2025 SHARMA Signing Da te:0 7.07.2025 19:34:29

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

four weeks.

¶20

3. Mr. Varun Vats, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent prays that, in the present case, the respondent have to requisition information from outside and that, therefore, they may be given eight weeks.

¶21

4. He also submits that the next training schedule, which is also tentative, is also only after six months.

¶22

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 petitioner’s application positively within a period of eight weeks from today. Ordinarily, no extension of time would be granted.

¶23

6. In case the petitioner is found unsuitable for appointment, the respondent would give reasons for the decision and communicate it to the petitioner.

¶24

7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶26

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

¶27

JULY 4, 2025 /sk

¶28

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶29

Signature Not Verified