Disposed¶31

Rajeev v. Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC24 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/8950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajeev v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 8950/2024, High Court of Delhi, coram Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ., decided 24.04.2026 (interim order 23.04.2026): writ petition by a Boys Sports Cadet Scheme, 2016 trainee (eligible 05.10.2021) seeking Indian Army appointment without the recruitment process; comparators shown to have participated in recruitment rallies; Petitioner failed 'Agniveer' rallies twice and refused a third attempt; held no induction possible without participating/failing in recruitment rallies; petition disposed of, no relief granted.

What did the court decide?

The six comparator candidates were recruited after having participated in the recruitment rallies as and when they became eligible; the Petitioner's contention that they were inducted without the rallies was wrong. ¶23

Rajeev Vs Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, who received free education and sports training under the Boys Sports Cadet Scheme, 2016 and became eligible for appointment on 05.10.2021, is required to be recruited into the Indian Army without participation in the recruitment process. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

All candidates who underwent free education and sports training under the Boys Sports Cadet Scheme, 2016 were recruited after participation in the recruitment rallies; the Petitioner, though eligible on 05.10.2021, participated in the rallies but failed twice and refused to participate on the third occasion.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

¶23

Key takeaways

Directions cannot be issued to induct the Petitioner into the Indian Army without him participating or failing in the recruitment rallies.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.), W.P.(C) 8950/2024, decided 24.04.2026: Petitioner Rajeev, given free education and sports training under the Boys Sports Cadet Scheme, 2016 and eligible for appointment in the Indian Army on 05.10.2021, sought a direction that the Army recruit him without participation in the recruitment process, relying on six comparator candidates allegedly inducted without recruitment rallies. The Court found the contention wrong: the six candidates were recruited after participating in the recruitment rallies when they became eligible, whereas the Petitioner attempted the 'Agniveer' rallies twice and failed, and refused to participate on the third occasion. Held that directions cannot be issued to induct a candidate into the Indian Army without his participating in or failing at the recruitment rallies; petition disposed of in those terms along with pending application(s), if any.

¶1

$~24

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 8950/2024

¶4

RAJEEV

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Gourave Kumar Agarwal, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Nishant Tyagi SPC with Major Kanika Sharma Army

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R % 24.04.2026

¶11

1. After hearing learned counsel representing the Parties, the following order was passed on 23.04.2026:

¶12

“1. A perusal of the record reflects that when the Petitioner was 11 years of age, he was given free education and sports training under the Boys Sports Cadet Scheme, 2016. As per the said scheme, the candidate, after availing free education and sports training, is required to join the Indian Army, failing which, the parents of the said candidate are supposed to bear the costs. The Petitioner herein, after attaining the age of 17 ½ years, became eligible for appointment on 05.10.2021.

¶13

2. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the Indian Army is required to recruit the Petitioner without participation in the recruitment process. Learned counsel seeks to rely upon the induction of 06 candidates namely, Mr. Arjun, Mr. Rohit, Mr. Manjeet, Mr. Ravinder and 02 other candidates, to substantiate his claim.

¶14

3. On the other hand, Mr. Nishant Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that the Petitioner has been, at multiple times, offered to join the Indian Army as ‘Agniveer’, however, he has not come forward to participate in the recruitment process.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) 8950/2024

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 27/04/2026 at 13:50:47

¶19

4. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner also submits that, 02 out of the aforestated 06 candidates have been permitted to join the Indian Army after 05.10.2021 without participating in the recruitment process.

¶20

5. At this stage, learned counsel representing the Respondents prays for an adjournment.

¶21

6. At his request, list on 24.04.2026 in the Supplementary List.”

¶22

Today, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that the Petitioner wrongly contended that six other candidates (referred to in Para 2 of the order dated 23.04.2026) were inducted without participating in the recruitment rallies.

¶23

It is disclosed that the aforesaid six candidates were recruited after having participated in the recruitment rallies as and when they became eligible. Though the Petitioner became eligible on 05.10.2021, he participated in the recruitment rallies for ‘Agniveer’ twice but failed and on the third occasion, he himself refused to participate.

¶24

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that there was delay in calling for the vacancy, at the relevant time and, therefore, direction is required to be issued to appoint the Petitioner in the Indian Army.

¶25

Firstly, it is evident that all the candidates who underwent free education and sports training as per Boys Sports Cadet Scheme, 2016 have been recruited after participation in the recruitment rallies. Contra -distinguished, as and when the Petitioner became eligible i.e. on 05.10.2021, he participated in the rallies but failed twice and on the third occasion, he refused to participate.

¶26

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, directions cannot be issued to induct the Petitioner into the Indian Army, without him participating or failing in the recruitment rallies.

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

W.P.(C) 8950/2024

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 27/04/2026 at 13:50:47

¶31

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶32

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶33

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶34

APRIL 24, 2026 “SS”

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

W.P.(C) 8950/2024

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 27/04/2026 at 13:50:47

Rajeev v. Union of India through Its Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev v. Union of India through Its Secretary & 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

Devender Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

ONGC Officers Association Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors.

Dr Om Prakash Kharbanda & Anr. Vs Adm/Lac, Distt. North and Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Nr 19127X Col R Padma Hepsiba

Shourya Caters & Anr. Vs University College of Medical Sciences & Ors.

M/S Ganga Polymers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ms. Priya Mahendra Vs Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge Hq and Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Garg Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors.

Chandra Mauli Kumar T. Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Maj Gen H Dharmarajan, Pvsm Avsm, Sm, Vsm (Retd) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Richa Sharma Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

Dalit Manav Utthan Sansthan Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Others

Canara Bank Vs Nancy Sehgal and Anr.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.