Dismissed¶19

Harikesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/3545/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Harikesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 3545/2026, High Court of Delhi, order dated 13.04.2026 (Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahan, JJ.) — Indian Army recruitment; Permanent Commission; 138th Technical Graduate Course (TGC); 23rd rank, Civil Engineering Branch; 11 vacancies; Short Service Commission (Tech)-62 Course, April 2024; Officers Training Academy (OTA), Chennai; challenge to merit list; writ of mandamus; Air Force dossier selection; unexplained delay of two years; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No candidate ranked junior to the Petitioner has been selected, so there is no case of a junior candidate having been preferred over him. ¶17

Harikesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~4

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3545/2026

¶4

HARIKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Maj. Kavish Aggarwala, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms. Latika Malhotra, SPC Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, GP. Major Kanika Sharma, Army, for Respondents 1-3.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 13.04.2026

¶10

The present writ petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶11

“I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, thereby quashing and setting aside the Impugned Merit List issued for the SSC (Tech)-62 Course (April 2024), and consequently to allot the Petitioner a seat in SSC (Tech)-62 at OTA, Chennai, or in any equivalent upcoming course; II. Direct the Respondents, in the alternative, that if such appointment cannot be granted at this stage, to adequately compensate the Petitioner for the discrepancy in allotment of vacancies and for the irreparable loss and injury caused to his career”

¶12

The Petitioner applied for Permanent Commission in the Indian Army. He appeared for 138^th Technical Graduate Course (‘TGC’) and secured 23^rd rank in Civil Engineering Branch. For Permanent Commission, 11 vacancies were available for Civil Engineering

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:22:49

¶15

Branch, hence, the Petitioner could not secure Permanent Commission. Subsequently, the Petitioner was invited to submit his willingness/ unwillingness to opt for Short Service Commission (Tech) Course at Officers Training Academy, Chennai, for which the Petitioner gave his consent. The Petitioner is essentially aggrieved by denial of appointment to him for the aforesaid course.

¶16

It is pointed out that the Petitioner could not be selected as there were 248 candidates against 175 vacancies for the said course. It is also submitted that thereafter, the documents of certain candidates were forwarded to Indian Air force, and 15 candidates were selected out of 80 dossiers. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not selected by Air Force as he did not meet the qualification criteria.

¶17

It is not the case of the Petitioner that any candidate who is ranked junior to him has been selected. Moreover, this recruitment concluded in January, 2024, despite which, the Petition has been filed in the year 2026 with no explanation for the delay.

¶18

Hence, no ground is made out to issue a writ in favour of the Petitioner.

¶19

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶20

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶21

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶22

APRIL 13, 2026 DU

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:22:49

Harikesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Maulana Azad Medical College

Anita Kumari Shimar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

R.L.Moria Vs UOI & Ors.

Umar Iqbal Raina Vs National Testing Agency Nta & Ors.

Samrita Singh Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Sanjay Kuamr Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Babu Lal Koli Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sanjay Goel Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Badam Singh and Ors. Vs Railway Protection Force and Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Onextel Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Kosinder Pal

Vijay Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Hitech Enterprises Vs M/S Modern Construction Company Delhi