$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 28.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 2709/2026 RAHUL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J Rajesh, Mr. Md Arsalan Ahmed, Mr. Yashwardhan Aggarwal and Mr. Ali Abbas Masoodi, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sayed Hussain Adil Taqvi, SPC, Mr Farman Ali CGSC, Ms Usha Jamnal and Ms Priya Rathi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL

1. The matter is taken up today as the date fixed, i.e. 02.03.2026 was declared a holiday vide notification no. 64/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated

27.02.2026.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

“A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of the letter dated 11.01.2025 whereby the Respondents have rejected the representation of the Petitioner for joining the subsequent batch of training; and Passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF RTC Deoli Rejecting The Petitioner's Representation in Violation of the Hon'ble Court's Directions Dated 05.11.2024 In W.P.(C) 15171/2024.

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to join the subsequent batch of training for his selected post without depression of his seniority, thereby keeping him at par with his batchmates; and C. Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. This is a second round of litigation. The first one being W.P.(C) 15171/2024 which was decided by this Court on 05.11.2024 by stating in paragraph 9 onwards as under:

“9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. In the peculiar facts of the present case in which the petitioner, post his appointment letter, had applied for further extension of time for joining the duty and the same having been rejected by a cryptic order dated 16.02.2024 which prima facie does not disclose any reasons for the rejection of the same, we are of the opinion that the present petition be considered as a representation of the petitioner by the respondents and the respondents should pass a speaking order thereon within a period of ten weeks from today. In case the petitioner wishes to file any further documents in support of his claim for leniency by the respondents, he may do so within a period of one week from today.

11. While considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondents shall not reject the same only on the ground that the six months period from the date of issuance of appointment letter has now passed.

12. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.”

4. It is pursuant thereto that the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 11.01.2025 by stating in paragraph 12 onwards as under:

“12. AND WHEREAS, in compliance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Judgment order dated 05.11.2024, the writ petition filed by Rahul Kumar (petitioner) for permission to join the next batch of training for the post of Constable/GD on compassionate grounds has been considered as his representation and found that the petitioner was issued an offer of appointment for the post of Const/GD in CISF on compassionate ground, consequent upon expiry of his father i.e. Shri (Late HC/GD) Mahender Singh vide Gp. Commandant, CISF Gp. HQrs New Delhi letter No. (8480) dated 27.09.2023 with direction to report to CISF RTC Deoli on 21.10.2023, Since the petitioner failed to join the basic training on

21.10.2023, subsequently, extending the opportunity, he was issued a call up notice vide CISF RTC Deoli letter No.. (940) dated 28.10.2023 directing him to report for basic training of Constable/GD at CISF RTC Deoli by 17.11.2023, in which also clearly mentioned that if he fails to report on the stipulated date, it would be presumed that he is no longer interested to join the service in CISF and the offer of appointment issued to him will be treated as cancelled. Further, t