Delhi High Court · 2026-01-23
VIJENDRA SINGH vs INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-1844/2022 2026:DHC:577-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- VIJENDRA SINGH
- Respondent
- INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 1844/2022 & CM APPL. 5301/2022 VIJENDRA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Vaxish, Mr. Pranav Raj Singh, Mr. Anant Attri, Mr. Fouaad Siddiqui, Advocates. Versus INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE & ORS ......Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Akash Mishra, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(a) Issue a writ/order/direction of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to set aside the Orders of Cancellation of Appointment of the Petitioner dated 13.10.2021 & 14.10.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1, as well as the Recruitment Letter dated 21.01.2022 issued by the Commandant CISF RTC Arakkonam and reinstate the Petitioner to the post of ASI in ITBP; (b) Issue a writ/order/direction of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the Post of SI in ITBP with the same seniority and benefits; (c) Issue a writ/order/direction of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent No. 2 directing them to rescind their revaluation of the Petitioner and reinstate his status as an eligible candidate for the Post of SI in ITBP; Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 1844/2022 Page 1 of 6 SHARMA Signing Date:30.01.2026 14:56:51 (d) Pass ad-interim / interim / ex-parte order(s) in respect of the prayers (a) to (c) hereinabove; and (e) Pass any other further order (s) / direction (s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 2. In effect, the petitioner is c