ARVIND KUMAR SINGH CHAUHAN vs DIRECTOR GENERAL & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19491/2025, CM APPL. 81380/2025, CM APPL. 81381/2025 & CM APPL. 81382/2025 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH CHAUHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikrant Singh Baisa, AOR with Ms. Neema, Mr. Utkars Singh, Advs. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Animesh Rastogi, SPC with Mrs. Neha Rastogi, Mr. Rajat Dubey, Mr. Shashank Pandey, Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocates Mr. Amit Gupta, SPC and Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, GP for ITBP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 22.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J 1. This writ petition, in our view, is premature. 2. The petitioner has been medically examined by the Departmental Rehabilitation Board which has recommended that the petitioner be placed in P-5 category and has further recommended that he be produced before the Invalidation Medical Board1. 3. The petitioner has appeared before the IMB. The IMB has 1 “IMB” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 19491/2025 Page 1 of 2 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:23.12.2025 18:35:23 examined the petitioner and is yet to take a decision. 4. Ms. Neema, learned Counsel who appears for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be examined by a Review Medical Board. The question of a Review Medical Board would if at all arise only after the IMB has taken its decision and communicated it to the petitioner. 5. At this stage, the petition is premised on a mere apprehension that the IMB’s decision would be against the petitioner. 6. We are not inclined to entertain a writ petition founded on a mere apprehension. The petition, therefore, is clearly premature. 7. It is accordingly dismissed as premature, reserving liberty with the petitioner to re-approach the Court at an appropriate stag