MR09494W Lt Col Hitesh Khanna Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

MR09494W Lt Col Hitesh Khanna Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, having crossed the upper age limit of 40 years for grant of study leave to pursue a Super Specialty Course after Post Graduation in Medicine, is entitled to an additional opportunity on account of the one-and-a-half-year delay in grant of Permanent Commission. +1 more

Court's answer

Despite the Petitioner's contention that permission to pursue the course beyond the age of 40 years had been granted in several instances in the Army, learned counsel was unable, on the Court's query, to draw attention to any such instance.

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of writ jurisdiction the Court enforces a legal right; in the absence of any rule, regulation or instruction entitling the Petitioner to claim an additional opportunity beyond the age of 40 years, no case for exercise of such jurisdiction is made out.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (division bench: Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.) dismisses a writ petition by a serving Lt Col seeking permission to avail study leave for a Super Specialty medical course after Post Graduation, the Petitioner having crossed the upper age limit of 40 years. Held: writ jurisdiction enforces a legal right; in the absence of any rule, regulation or instruction entitling the Petitioner to an additional opportunity beyond 40 years, no case for its exercise is made out. The contention that permission had been granted beyond 40 years in other Army instances failed, counsel being unable to point to any such instance. Counsel did not dispute that the Armed Forces Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over leave-related disputes. The delay of one and a half years in grant of Permanent Commission (granted 11.07.2013) was urged as the cause of the lost opportunity; respondents noted three study leave opportunities were available, of which only one was availed, and that the Petitioner did not secure sufficient marks in the entrance examination. Writ petition dismissed; all pending applications closed.

$~84

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 4318/2026, CM APPL. 21074/2026 and CM APPL. 21075/2026

MR09494W LT COL HITESH KHANNA .....Petitioner Through: Maj Piyush Thakran (Retd) and Mr. Anil Kumar Chaudhary

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik and Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R % 09.04.2026

Learned counsel representing the parties do not dispute that the Armed Forces Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the disputes relating to leave.

The Petitioner has crossed 40 years of age, which is the upper age limit for grant of permission to avail study leave for pursuing a Super Specialty Course after doing Post Graduation in the field of Medicine.

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner contends that delay of one and a half years in the grant of Permanent Commission resulted in the denial of such opportunity to the Petitioner.

Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that the Petitioner was granted Permanent Commission on

This is a digitally signed order.

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 13/04/2026 at 12:48:49

11.07.2013 and he could avail as many as three opportunities for study leave. However, the Petitioner availed only one such opportunity. He further submits that the Petitioner did not secure sufficient marks in the entrance examination for the super-speciality course.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that there are several instances in the Army where such permission has been granted beyond the age of 40 years.

However, on a query put by the Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner was unable to draw attention to any such instance.

In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court is required to enforce a legal right. In the absence of any rule, regulation or instruction entitling the Petitioner to claim an additional opportunity beyond the age of 40 years, no case for exercise of such jurisdiction is made out. 8. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. All pending applications are also closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

APRIL 09, 2026 /sp/ad

This is a digitally signed order.

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 13/04/2026 at 12:48:49