Disposed

Chhotu Kumar v. Indian Coast Guard & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/388/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A candidate declared unfit for Indian Coast Guard Navik (General Duty) recruitment over an alleged pilonidal sinus sought re-examination, citing contrary opinions from AIIMS and Safdarjung Hospital. The court directed respondents to re-examine him factoring those opinions and later batch medical examinations within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to re-examine the petitioner considering AIIMS and Safdarjung opinions and later batch medicals, within six weeks.

Chhotu Kumar Vs Indian Coast Guard & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~96

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 13.01.2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 388/2026 & CM APPL. 1866/2026

¶5

CHHOTU KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Ms. Parul Khurana and Ms. Kirti Vyas, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

INDIAN COAST GUARD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anshuman, SPC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶11

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )

¶12

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶13

“1) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside/holding the declaration of the Petitioner as “unfit” by the Respondents vide the Impugned Medical Report dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure – P2) as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India , 1950;

¶14

2) Consequentially, issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to induct the Petitioner directly to Stage -IV of the ongoing recruitment process for Batch 02/2025 in Impugned Advertisement dated 11.02.2025;

¶15

3) Alternatively, allow the Petitioner to join Stage – III of Batch 01/2026 & 02/2026 with consequential benefits similar to 02/2025 Batch;

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.01.2026 18:26:50

¶18

W.P.(C) 388/2026 Page 1 of 3

¶19

4) In the alternative to prayer (b), direct the Respondents to facilitate the establishment of a new Medical Board at the Army Hospital (R&R), New Delhi to conduct a fresh medical examination of the Petitioner;

¶20

5) Allow the present Writ Petition with exemplary compensation, costs, and litigation expenses in favour of the Petitioner; and/or

¶21

6) Pass any such other/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favour of the Petitioner. ”

¶22

We find that the petitioner had applied for recruitment to the post of Navik (General duty) against Batch Nos. 02/2025, 01/2026 & 02/2026. In the final result sheet of Batch No. 02/2025, the petitioner was informed that he has not been shortlisted as the Pre-Enrolment Medicals during Stage-III at INS Chilka found him medically unfit because of an alleged deformity of Pilonidal Sirnus .

¶23

Mr. Abhinay Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got himself examined at AIIMS and VMMC & Safdarjung Hospitals, New Delhi. According to the opinions of those hospitals, the petitioner has a healed scar over the right Iliac Fossa with no pain, discharge, hernia, muscle defect, or evidence of Pilonidal Sinus and no intervention is required.

¶24

He submits that as a prudent measure, the petitioner had applied against Batch Nos. 01/2026 and 02/2026 also. He states that the petitioner shall be satisfied if he is re-examined. He also states that the petitioner has been found ‘fit’ as per Armed Forces Medical Standards during Stage-II of initial Medical Examination in the combined Batch nos.01/2026 & 02/2026.

¶25

Noting the said submissions, in the facts of this case, appropriate shall

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.01.2026 18:26:50

¶28

W.P.(C) 388/2026 Page 2 of 3

¶29

be, the respondents re-examine the petitioner, by taking the opinion of the doctors into consideration; combined medical examination carried out with regard to the Batch Nos. 01/2026 and 02/2026 and also the medical opinion given the AIIMS and VMMC & Safdarjung Hospitals, New Delhi and then take action in accordance with law.

¶30

This exercise shall be carried out within six weeks as an outer limit. 7. In view of the above, the petition along with pending application is disposed of.

¶31

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶32

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶33

JANUARY 13, 2026 rk

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.01.2026 18:26:50

¶36

W.P.(C) 388/2026 Page 3 of 3

Chhotu Kumar v. Indian Coast Guard & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Kumar v. Indian Coast Guard & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Bahadur Vs Union of India and Anr.

Atul Punj Vs Union of India & Ors.

Cloud 9 Pojects Private Limited Vs Anubhav Gupta and Ors.

Mohit Singh Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University and Anr.

Ms Gupta Sales and Service Vs Principal Commissioner Cgst & Anr.

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Kajal and Anrs. Vs the Controller (Cd) DM S/W District and Anr.

Abha Sharma & Anr. Vs Haryana Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Sudhir Kumar Dhari Vs Union of India and Ors.

Insp Exe Manoj Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajveer Vs Union of India & Anr.

Govind Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bankar Hukum Natha Vs Union of India & Ors.