Zakaria Ahmed v. Union Of India & ORS.
$~99 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ZAKARIA AHMED .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Adv.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr.
Jitendra Kr.
Gautam, CRPF/RAF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 10.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1.
This is the third time the petitioner is approaching this Court. As a true sports person, he seems to be under the fond impression that his innings at the judicial crease will never come to an end. 2.
The petitioner is recruited in the Central Reserve Police Force1. He was, at one point of time, in the Central Athletics Team of the CRPF, from which he was de-inducted on 15 February 2017. Aggrieved by his de-induction, the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP (C) 1851/2017.
3.
WP (C) 1851/2017 came up before a Division Bench of this 1 "CRPF" hereinafter
Court which, on 18 August 2017, disposed of it in the following terms, clearly and categorically stating that there was no case to grant any relief to the petitioner "except and to the extent that the respondents would always consider the petitioner for appointment at an appropriate post connected with sports":
"8.
The respondents would keep the aforesaid OM in mind and if and when there is any suitable vacancy/post, where services of the petitioner can be utilised, he would be so considered for appointment.
***** 10.
However, for the reasons stated above, we do not see any reason to grant any relief to the petitioner, except and to the extent that the respondents would always consider the petitioner for appointment at an appropriate post connected with the sports." 4.
The petitioner, thereafter, re-approached this Court by way of WP (C) 2126/2018, reiterating his prayer that he be appointed in an appropriate post connected to sports. The said writ petition stands dismissed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23 April 2018.
5.
The petitioner has now re-approached this Court for the third time by means of the present writ petition, again alleging that his deinduction from the Central Athletics Team in 2014 was illegal. That apart, the petitioner submits that there were certain other persons who were appointed as Coach/Assistant Coach in the Central Athletics Team. He, therefore, now prays that he be appointed as Coach/Assistant Coach.
6.
The best of players has to exit the field at some point.
7.
This Court has already directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for an appropriate sports posting subject to his suitability and availability of the vacancies.
8.
There is no way by which this Court can return a subjective finding as to whether the petitioner is suitable to be appointed as Coach/Assistant Coach. The petitioner, no doubt, considers himself suitable. That, however, cannot be a basis for this Court to issue a direction in that regard.
9.
Except for observing that the respondents would act in accordance with the orders dated 18 August 2017 and 23 April 2018 passed in WP (C) 1851/2017 and WP (C) 2126/2018, we do not see any reason to interfere with this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J DECEMBER 10, 2025/AR