* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: February 19, 2024 + W.P.(C) 2422/2024 (53) NISHANT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Manish Rohilla, Mr.Pranjal Kumar Azad and Mr.Anish Kashyap, Advocates Versus INDIAN COAST GUARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shekhar Vyas, SPC with Mr. Abhishek Khanna, G.P.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE SAURABH BANERJEE, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 9929/2024 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2422/2024 & CM APPL. 9928/2024 (for stay)

3. As per facts, respondent no.1-Indian Coast Guard through Director General and respondent no.2- Indian Coast Guard through Directorate of Recruitment issued an advertisement for the post of Assistant Commandant Technical (Electrical/ Electronics) for the 02/2024 Batch. Out of the prescribed Stage-I, II, III, IV, the petitioner applied, appeared and cleared Stage-I of the examinations on 19.12.2023.

4. Thereafter, though the petitioner had to upload original documents online, however, he was unable to do so due to some technical glitch despite many attempts on 20.12.2023. Therefore, on 20.12.2023 itself he sent an e-

W.P.(C) 2422/2024 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed mail to the respondents addressing his grievance. Since the petitioner was out of station from 22.12.2023 to 23.12.2023, as he was to report for Physical Standard/ Efficiency Test at Central Industrial Security Force, SSG, Noida, he became aware about cancellation of his candidature only on 24.12.2023. Thus, after getting no response to his previous e-mail of

20.12.2023, he again sent e-mails on 28.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 as well.

5. Getting no revert thereto, the petitioner has now preferred the present petition under Article 226 of The Constitution if India seeking a direction to the respondents for allowing the petitioner to appear for the SSB test and to further direct the respondent to let him join the SSB as per his merit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a technical glitch on the part of the respondents and it cannot be attributable to the petitioner, moreover, the petitioner being a prudent person had already sent an e-mail for the resolution of the technical issues, thus, his candidature ought not to be cancelled.

7. Per-contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is one of the only candidate who failed to comply with the pre- requisite mandate of uploading the documents as per the advertisement within the stipulated time whereas there are other candidates who were able to comply with it within the stipulated time.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record as well.

9. At the outset, this Court finds that since the petitioner has neither challenged the procedure adopted by the respondents nor questioned the pre- set timeline stated in the advertisement issued by the respondents, the scope of interference in the present petition is extremely miniscule. This is, W.P.(C) 2422/2024 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed moreover, as it is the prerogative of the respondents to set up the procedures; and to regulate the deadline(s) of the requisite dates; and to call for the requisite documents; as also to fix the stages/ schedules stipulated in the advertisement is as per their discretion, which under the present scenario leaves no occasion for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India as it is to be sparingly used, that too only whence there is any plausible scope of interference or when some prescribed procedure(s) have not been followed or when the notification/ advertisement/ rule/ regulation or like are under challenge and not otherwise in each and every situation. Thus, that being not the position in the present petition, no interference by this Court is called for under Article