Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22162 (DEL)

PARMAR DISHANTKUMAR SUBHASHBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA

W.P.(C)/8976/2025 · 2025-07-04

Ajay Digpaul, C Hari Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.(C) 8976/2025 $~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8976/2025 & CM APPL. 38342/2025 PARMAR DISHANTKUMAR SUBHASHBHAI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mandeep Baisala, Mr. Dhananjay Singh and Mr. Vivek Kumar, Vishwanath, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar and Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak Advs. along with DC Krishan Dass and Insp. Sanjay Kumar, CISF. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL ORDER (ORAL) % 04.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner has moved this Court by means of the present writ petition, challenging the decision of the respondent to refer the petitioner’s case to the Standing Screening Committee of the Central Industrial Security Force . 2. Mr. Mandeep Baisala, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to an order dated 10 February 2025 passed by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Waman Mahendra Navnath v UOI2 1 “CISF” hereinafter 2 MANU/DE/0978/2025 in which this Court, in similar circumstances, has directed the Standing Screening Committee to take a decision within Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:07.07.2025 19:34:29 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8976/2025 four weeks. 3. Ms. Shubhra Parashar, learned Counsel for the respondent prays that, in the present case, the respondents have to requisition information from outside and that, therefore, they may be given eight weeks. 4. She also submits that the next training schedule, which is also tentative, is also only after six months. 5. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the Standing Screening Committee take a decision on the petitioner’s application positively within a period of eight weeks from today. Ordinarily, no extension of time would be granted. 6. In case the petitioner is found unsuitable for appointment, the respondent would give reasons for the decision and communicate it to the petitioner. 7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C. HARI SHANKAR, J. AJAY DIGPAUL, J. JULY 4, 2025/sk Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:07.07.2025 19:34:29