Deepak Kumar v. Union Of India And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner applied for recruitment to the posts of Constable/Driver and Constable/Driver-cum-Pump Operator (Driver for Fire Services) pursuant to an advertisement published between 10 and 16 February 2018 inviting applications for posts in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The petitioner was declared 'unfit' by a Medical Board on 17 May 2019 and by a Review Medical Board on 4 July 2019. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) 2355/2020 impugning both medical orders and sought a mandamus directing CISF to consider the petitioner's candidature.

Separately, the petitioner filed C.M. Application No. 24510/2020 seeking early hearing/listing of the petition. The application for early hearing was taken up and allowed by the court "subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules." The bench noted multiple adjournments and delay in listing the petition, including adjournments caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and that the petitioner did not take steps to have the petition listed for several months. It was also noted in the application that training for recruited candidates was scheduled to commence in December 2020, indicating that the recruitment process may be over.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the application for early hearing/listing of the writ petition should be allowed.
2. Whether the writ petition challenging the Medical Board and Review Medical Board orders (declaring the petitioner 'unfit') should be considered on merits, including the relief of mandamus to consider the petitioner's candidature.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner (through newly engaged counsel) explained that the petitioner was not responsible for the inaction between 3 March 2020 and the present listing because the current counsel is newly engaged.
• The petition was originally filed on 14 February 2020 but was under objection and therefore could not be listed until 3 March 2020; this was offered as explanation for any delay in filing or listing.
• The petitioner sought an adjournment to address the court in respect of the matters raised.

Respondents' (CISF) Statements

• The counsel for the respondents appeared on advance notice and, after obtaining telephonic instructions during the hearing, stated that the recruitment process initiated by the 2017 advertisement is "long since over."
• The respondents' counsel agreed to have a person/official knowledgeable about the recruitment and the medical records available and to be prepared to share the medical examination records on screen if requested by the court.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in a series of factual and procedural observations and pragmatic directions:

1. The court recognized that the application before it (C.M. Appln. No. 24510/2020) was an application seeking early hearing of the writ petition.
2. The court noted the chronology of earlier listings and adjournments: the petitioner first appeared on 3 March 2020 (after nearly nine months from the Review Medical Board decision), but the Division Bench did not assemble that day; the matter was adjourned to 16 March 2020, then to 5 May 2020 owing to the pandemic, and was subsequently adjourned from time to time. The petitioner did not take steps to have the petition listed until the present application.
3. The court took judicial notice of information in the application that training for recruited candidates was scheduled to commence in December 2020 and therefore inquired of respondents' counsel about the status of the recruitment process. Respondents' counsel stated that the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement was long since over.
4. Balancing these circumstances, and "for the reasons stated," the court allowed the application for early hearing, took up the petition for hearing on the same day, and disposed of the application for early hearing. The court allowed the C.M. application "subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules."
5. To ensure the factual record was complete for further consideration of the petition, the court directed the respondents CISF to file a short affidavit disclosing the date when the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement came to a close; to arrange the presence of a person/official in the know of the facts along with the records of the petitioner's medical examinations by the Medical Board and Review Medical Board; and to be prepared to share those documents on screen if asked.
6. The court set deadlines and listings: the respondents' affidavit to be filed on or before 23 October 2020, and the matter to be listed on 6 November 2020.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings:

• Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules. The application for early hearing (C.M. Appln. No. 24510/2020) was allowed.
• The applications are disposed of. The application for early hearing was disposed of after being allowed and the writ petition was taken up for hearing on the same day.

Consequences and practical implications as set out by the court:

• The petition challenging the Medical Board and Review Medical Board orders remains pending and has been taken up for hearing in consequence of the allowance of the early-listing application.
• The respondents CISF were directed to file a short affidavit by 23 October 2020 disclosing when the recruitment process concluded and to produce the relevant medical records and an official familiar with the facts (with readiness to share documents on screen).
• The matter was listed for further proceedings on 6 November 2020.
• The opinion does not state that any broader legal precedent was laid down; it records procedural dispositions and directed factual clarifications. No new legal rule was announced in the text provided.