Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010029012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/849/2025 SONU YADAV S/O- LALAN YADAV R/O- VILL- SHIKARI PATHAR POST TARALANGSO, P.S- KAKI, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA 9 ORS. REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA THE MINISTRY OF PERSONAL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION S NEW DELHI PIN-110001. 3:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 4:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF COMMISSION SELECTION HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST Page No.# 2/7 BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD P.O.ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR ASSAM PIN-781006 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 6:THE COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE RTC ARRAKKONAM CHENNAI TAMILNADU. 7:THE AIG/RECTT.CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE HEADQUARTERS NEW DELHI. 8:THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE NEZ HEADQUARTERS GUWAHATI. 9:THE COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT BHEL BHOPAL P.O.PIPLANI DIST.BOPAL MADHYA PRADESH. 10:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE REGIONAL TRAINING CENTRE Page No.# 3/7 ARRAKKONAM CHENNAI TAMILNADU Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MR. J K ROY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY (C.G.C.) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 14/11/2025 Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S S Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has assailed a communication dated 27.01.2025, issued towards cancelling the provisional offer of appointment made to him against the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) vide communication dated 27.01.2025, basing on the unwillingness submitted by the petitioner for joining against the post of Constable, General Duty, CISF. 3. The petitioner, herein, on his selection in the Central Armed Police Forces, SSF and Rifleman (GD), Examination, 2024, was offered provisional appointment against the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force vide communication dated 18.12.2024. The petitioner was asked to join for undergoing his training at the Regional Training Center, Arakkonam, CISF. The communication dated 18.12.2024 also indicates that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of 2 (two) years. The petitioner, thereafter, on acceptance of the provisional appointment extended to him, proceeded to undergo his training at the Regional Training Center, Arakkonam, CISF and reported therein on 21.01.2025. On reporting of the petitioner before the Training Center, on completion of the requisite formalities, the petitioner joined his services w.e.f. 22.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner on receiving an information from his father about deterioration of his mother’s Page No.# 4/7 health condition, he submitted a written application on 24.01.2025, addressed to the Principal of the Regional Training Center, Arakkonam, wherein, he was to undergo training, praying for releasing him and also informing that he was not willing to join the post of Constable (General Duty). The petitioner was found to have subsequently submitted an undertaking on 24.01.2025 to the same effect. In terms of the communication dated 24.01.2025 and the undertaking of the same date submitted by the petitioner, the respondents vide communication dated 27.01.2025, proceeded to cancel the offer of provisional appointment issued to the petitioner against the post of Constable (General Duty). 3. The ground assigned in the said communication dated 27.01.2025 is the unwillingness expressed by the petitioner, herein, to join the service against the post of Constable (General Duty). The petitioner, having received the said communication dated 27.01.2025 had instituted the present proceeding before this Court on 11.02.2025. 4. Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the document verification of the petitioner was being conducted in the Regional Training Center after he had joined therein on 22.01.2025, information was received from an anonymous source, by the Commandant of the Training Center, that the petitioner was not a domicile of the State of Assam and accordingly, a misrepresentation was made by the petitioner while filling up of his application form. 5. It is projected by Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was threatened by the Commandant that in the event he did not voluntarily relinquish the offer of provisional appointment made to him, he would be proceeded against for having committed an offence of fraud. Mr. Sarma, submits that it is in the above premises that the petitioner was forced to write the communication dated 24.01.2025, along with the undertaking dated 24.01.2025. It is further submitted that the communication dated 24.01.2025 and the undertaking given on the same date, were not given by the petitioner voluntarily but was obtained from him under coercion. 6. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having been duly selected for his appointment against the post of Constable (General Duty) in Page No.# 5/7 the CISF and he having brought on record in the present proceeding the documents demonstrating his domicile in the State of Assam, this Court would be pleased to interfere with the communication dated 27.01.2025 and direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner, herein, to resume and complete his training program. 7. Per contra, Mr. S S Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondents submits that the plea as taken by the petitioner in the present proceeding that the communication dated 24.01.2025 issued by the petitioner informing the Commandant of the Training Center of his unwillingness to continue with the training program and also not to join as a member of the force as well as the undertaking dated 24.01.2025 to have been made by the petitioner under pressure is not borne out of the records maintained by the respondents. He submits that the petitioner after submitting the communication dated 24.01.2025 and the undertaking dated 24.01.2025 had not disputed the said aspect of the matter before any authority on the ground that the same were not voluntarily made by him but was so done under coercion from the authorities of the Regional Training Center. Accordingly, Mr. S S Roy, learned CGC submits that on second thoughts the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding, projecting a story which cannot held to be probable one. Accordingly, he submits that the communication dated 27.01.2025 would not mandate any interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The petitioner on his selection as Constable (General Duty) in CISF had proceeded to undertake the training at the Regional Training Center, Arakkonam, CISF on 21.01.2025. Thereafter, all the necessary formalities being completed, the petitioner was permitted to join the said training center w.e.f. 22.01.2025 and was also given a chest number. While the petitioner’s document verification was on, the petitioner, as projected by the respondents, had received information from his father about the deteriorating health condition of his mother. The said information has been stated to have caused pain to the petitioner and he had reported before the authorities that he was not willing to continue at the training center and wanted to go back home. The above being the position, the petitioner had also submitted a written application on 24.01.2025 addressed to the Principal of the Training Page No.# 6/7 Center, wherein, he had disclosed that his father had informed him that his mother’s health condition had suddenly worsened and as such, he could not keep himself away for 1 (one) year from his family and accordingly, he was not willing to join the post of Constable (General Duty) and requested that he be permitted to go back to his native place. The said communication was followed by an undertaking dated 24.01.2025, wherein, the petitioner confirmed the stand taken by him in the communication dated 24.01.2025. The effect of the undertaking as well as the communication dated 24.01.2025 is that the petitioner had forgone his candidature for the post of Constable (General Duty) in CISF. Accordingly, the respondent authorities poised with the said situation, had proceeded to issue the communication dated 27.01.2025, accepting the stand of the petitioner and accordingly, cancelled the offer of provisional appointment made to him in the matter. In the sequence of events as projected by the respondents and noted hereinabove, the issuance of the communication dated 27.01.2025, cancelling the offer of provisional appointment to the petitioner cannot be held to be erroneous. 10. Having noted the above position, this Court also would notice that the petitioner in the present writ petition had projected that while his process of document verification was going on, on 24.01.2025, the Commandant of the Training Center had charged him, basing on an information received from an anonymous source, that the petitioner was infact not a domicile of the State of Assam. The petitioner was alleged to have committed misrepresentation in the application submitted by him for recruitment to the Force by projecting therein to be a domicile of the State of Assam. 11. It is further projected by the petitioner that he was coerced to give up his job, failing which, he was threatened that criminal proceeding would be instituted against him for commission of fraud. The said stand taken by the petitioner is found only in the writ petition filed before this Court. The petitioner in the event was subjected to the said threat by the authorities of the Regional Training Center, Arakkonam, CISF, it is not found that the petitioner had responded thereto by approaching the higher authorities by submitting a representation highlighting such pressure he was subjected to, by the authorities of the Training Center. The petitioner, being coerced to submit his withdrawal of the offer of Page No.# 7/7 provisional appointment as Constable (General Duty), a cognizable offence was committed in the matter against the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner is not found to have instituted any criminal proceeding against the perpetrators of the said act against him. No material has been brought on record by the petitioner towards justifying his stand that the communication and the undertaking, both dated 24.01.2025 to have been not voluntarily made by him. 12. In view of the documents brought on record by the petitioner as well as the respondent and the same also containing the letter dated 24.01.2025 and the undertaking dated 24.01.2025 issued by the petitioner and there from it being not discernible that the same was not voluntarily submitted by the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to accept the projection made by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 13. In view of the above conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, had submitted the communication dated 24.01.2025 and the undertaking dated 24.01.2025 in the format prescribed voluntarily and the projection made in the present writ petition are based on subsequent thoughts, which cannot invalidate the initial action taken by the petitioner, herein, in the matter, which has also not been shown to have not been taken voluntarily. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant