WP(C)/312/2025 of HIMADRI DEB Vs UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. on 16 April 2026

1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force (Recruitment Branch), New Delhi

3. Inspector General of Police, NES Reserve Police Force, 9th Mile, Guwahati, Post Office-Amerigog, District Kamrup (M), Assam-781023.

4. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Office of the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Reserve Police Force, 9th Mile, Guwahati, Post Office-Amerigog, District Kamrup (M), Assam-781023.

5. The Commandant-175 BN, CRPF, Presiding Officer, RRC, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati (Assam)

… Respondent(s)

__________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Dutta, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with

Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication

Yes/No

in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The petitioner on not being allowed to join service as Constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), even after having cleared all stages of recruitment process, which had also resulted into an offer of appointment order dated 28.08.2023, on the ground of a small error in the 10th Marksheet is before this Court seeking appropriate directions.

2. Objection to the writ petition as to the maintainability was taken at the outset on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The respondents have placed before this Court the fact that the offer of appointment to the petitioner was issued by the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati (Assam) vide letter No. R.II-01/2023-(CT/GD-2022)-RRC-Gty dated

28.08.2023, which is issued outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Meghalaya.

3. In this connection a Judgment of this Court in the case of Sri. Subodh Kumar Rai vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 23.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 246 of 2025 on identical circumstances, has also been relied upon by the respondents.

4. This Court on this objection had repeatedly from 24.11.2025 and on many successive dates thereafter, had adjourned the matter for consideration on this point, on the request of the petitioner, and on 11.03.2026, had allowed the learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain final instructions, which was however not received.

5. In consideration of the matter thereof, as the case being covered by the decision cited by the respondents, the instant writ application is not entertained on the similar ground that the offer of appointment was issued by the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati (Assam), which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is however, given liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court, for redressal of his grievances.

6. As ordered above, the matter stands closed and is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE

Meghalaya 16.04.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”

2026:MLHC:339 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.04.16 17:52:52 IST Signature Not Verified