Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 15606/2023
ZAKARIA AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Adv.
Through: Mr. Jitendra Kr. Gautam, CRPF/RAF
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
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 Force[1]. 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 “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”:
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