2025:JHHC:24769 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3335 of 2017 --------- Vikrama Prasad, Son of Sri Kanhaiya Prasad, Resident of Bhaluhipur, Post Office-Ara Chowk, Police Station-Ara Chowk, District-Bhojpur, Bihar. ......Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India. 2. The Central Industrial Security Force, through its Director General C.I.S.F.-Headquarter 13, P.O+P.S.-C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi. 3. The Director General, The Central Industrial Security Force, C.I.S.F.-Headquarter 13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O/PS- Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 4. The Director general C.I.S.F., C.I.S.F. Headquarter, C.I.S.F. Recruitment Board, 13 C.G.O. Complex, P.O.-C.G.O. Complex, P.S.- Lodhi Road, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Pin No.-110003. 5. The Commandant, C.I.S.F. KAPS, Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, P.O.-Anumala, P.S.-Anumala, Dist.-Tapi, State-Gujrat, Pin No.-394651. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Ms. Nitu Sinha, CGC --------- 09/Dated:-11.08.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (a) For the direction upon the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner on the post of sub-inspector, in view of the result of the C.I.S.F. recruitment Board, dated 09.03.2003, wherein, the petitioner was successful and his name was there in merit list after the written exam was taken and again a second time written Exam has been taken on 03.10.2003 and result was declared verbally on 09.10.2003 at 8.30 p.m., but after that half an hr. the same was said to be scrapped and asked the petitioner to their unit and over there they will be informed about the result but till date no information given, the exam, but, on the face of it, was scrapped, but later on near in the month of April 2004, 35 were selected in written and 26, has been given joining those who have joined and those who have been given second promotion also serving as inspector. (b) For the direction upon the respondents to pay the arrear of difference of salary for the post of sub-inspector from the date of 2025:JHHC:24769 2 publication of the result since 2004, as the petitioner has succeeded in the exam, but, the Board has illegally without considering his candidature, others cases has been considered the appointment to the post of sub-inspector (Executive) along with statutory interest and cost. (c) For the direction upon the respondents to produce the original merit list copy of CISF S.I. (Executive) exam dated 09.03.2003 at CISF unit IOC Barauni before this Hon’ble Court. (d) For the direction to pay the difference of salary from promotion from sub-Inspector Executive to Inspector till date. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein at para 9 and 10, the stand of the respondents is indicated. For brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “09. That it is stated and submitted that Notification was issued vide this Dte. Ltr dated 26.09/07.10.2002 for filling up 285 posts in the rank of SI/Exe in CISF through LDCE in the year 2002. Written examination was held on 09.03.2003 in all the Zonal Centres. But, as administratively decided then, after written examination, instead of calling up only those candidates who qualify the written examination, all the candidates who appeared in the written examination irrespective of marks they had obtained in the written examination including the petitioner were called up for further tests (Eligibility test, PET, Interview and Medical Examination) at RCFL Mumbai which was subsequently changed to 5th RBN Ghaziabad. 10. That after completion of all the tests, the competent authority observed that there was deviation of the prescribed procedure, hence, in the interest of justice the whole recruitment process was then scrapped. However, to meet the justice, it was ordered to hold fresh re-tests from the stage of written examination. Accordingly, all the candidates including the petitioner were called for fresh written examination which was held on 05-10-2003. Result of written examination was declared in which only 35 candidates were found qualified. The petitioner was not found qualified in this written examination. After completion of further tests, out of 35 candidates 26 were finally declared qualified and joined the post in the year 2004.” 4. It further transpires that the petitioner has sought remedy for the cause of action of 2003-2004 by filing the instant application in the year 2017, which stand has also been taken by the respondents at para 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit which is also extracted hereinbelow: “3. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the writ application of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court 2025:JHHC:24769 3 after a period of 14 years and in the meantime for 13 years till his only representation dt.29/12/2016, he has not made any correspondence with the authorities with respect to his grievances.” 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the respective affidavits, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-