Ashish Chandra Tripathi vs Union Of India & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 25.08.2026
Judgment delivered on : 01.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on : As per Digital Signature~
# CNR No. DLHC010274572025
+ W.P.(C) 5956/2025
ASHISH CHANDRA TRIPATHI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Mr. Vikrant
Dabas and Mr. Samridh Trivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
REVIEW PET. 340/2026
1. This review petition has been filed by the review petitioner/petitioner
seeking review of order dated 19.06.2026 passed by this Court in the
captioned writ petition whereby this Court had rejected the petition by
stating in paragraphs 5 onwards as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 340/2026 in W.P.(C) 5956/2025 Page 1 of 6
“5. Though this submission looks appealing on a first
blush, but it is a fact that the respondents have since
considered the representation dated 04.02.2025 of the
petitioner against the gradings and rejected the same
on 11.07.2025. In that sense, even assuming the
respondents have convened the DCC on 30.01.2025
and reverted the petitioner to the post of Inspector/GD,
BSF, the representation having been rejected, the
reversion order cannot be faulted now. This we say so
because the Court is within its right to consider the
subsequent developments/facts, while deciding a writ
petition.
6. We could have agreed with this submission of
Mr.Bhargava, if the representation of the petitioner
had not been decided as of today. In any case, if we
were to accept the plea of Mr.Bhargava and set aside
the order, still the respondents are not precluded to
take a fresh decision as on 11.07.2025 when the
petitioner’s representation was rejected. It means, the
gradings in the SMPAR, have been upheld which
became the basis for not confirming the petitioner on
the post of Assistant Commandant.
7. It is also noted the representation against the
gradings in SMPAR of 09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023 has
also been considered and rejected by Additional
Director General, HQ on 08.12.2023. Likewise, the
representation on the SMPAR pertaining to the period
09.01.2023 to 08.07.2023 has been considered and
rejected by Additional Director General (Eastern
Command) BSF, Kolkata on 03.07.2024.
8. In fact, it is a matter of record that the petitioner has
challenged the gradings in SMPARs in a separate writ
petition, which is pending consideration, hence, in that
sense, till such time, the said petition is decided and the
gradings in SMPAR are set aside, the reversion of the
petitioner to the post of Inspector (GD) cannot be
interfered with.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 340/2026 in W.P.(C) 5956/2025 Page 2 of 6
9. Mr. Bhargava has relied upon the decision in the
case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1
SCC 248, to contend that the administrative action
having civil consequence must be just, fair and
reasonable, cannot be contested. But the judgment has
no applicability in the facts of this case and in view of
our findings above.
10. Similarly, the judgments in the case of Rattan Singh
v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1997) 4 SCC 161, All
India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4
SCC 288, State of Haryana v. Dev Raj, LPA
No.2077/2012, and Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors, 2004(4) SCC 697 are clearly distinguishable in
view of the facts and in view of our above finding. Even
the judgment in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v.
Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors, 1990 AIR 86 relied upon,
in support of the submission in respect of grant of
interim injunction on an interlocutory application, has
no applicability in view of the facts, issues raised and
our above findings. Similarly, reliance has been placed
on the judgment in the case of Managing Director,
ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and
Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Nar Singh Pal v. Union
of India and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 588. We have seen
these judgments. They have no applicability to the facts
of the case and as such clearly distinguishable.
11. In view of our above discussion, this petition being
devoid of merit, is dismissed.”
2. Suffice to state that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was with
the following prayers:-
“a) Review, the judgment dated 19.06.2026 passed by
this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 5956 of 2025, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 114 read with
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, to the extent it proceeds on the erroneous factual
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 340/2026 in W.P.(C) 5956/2025 Page 3 of 6
premise that the Petitioner’s statutory representation
against the adverse SMPAR for the assessment period
09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023 had been considered and
rejected by the Additional Director General
(Headquarters), Border Security Force, on 08.12.2023,
which is contrary to the material already forming part
of the judicial record;
b) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
3. In effect, the petitioner has challenged his reversion from the post of
Assistant Commandant to the post of Inspector in the Border Security Force
(“BSF”). The primary ground averred by the petitioner as urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner was that the reversion is contrary to the
office memorandum dated 24.11.2022, which according to him, inter-alia
stipulated that probation report for the whole period of probation needs to be
considered by a Board for determining whether the probationer concerned is
fit to be in service/post.
4. The submission primarily was that Six Monthly Performance
Assessment Report (“SMPAR”) for the period from 09.07.2023 to
08.01.2024, had gradings which were communicated to the petitioner on
06.01.2025 against which the petitioner had made a representation, but the
same having not been decided, the petitioner could not have been reverted.
We dealt with that issue in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order dated 19.06.2026
of which review has been sought.
5. This review petition has been filed by stating that even against the
SMPAR grading for the period from 09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023, a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 340/2026 in W.P.(C) 5956/2025 Page 4 of 6
representation was made which has not been considered/decided by the
competent authority i.e. Additional Director General (HQ). Hence, the
reversion is bad.
6. Suffice to state, this plea has been answered by us in paragraph 7 of
the order dated 19.06.2026. Even otherwise, we have considered the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this regard, it
is relevant to refer to page no.162 of the review petition, which contains a
representation dated 30.08.2023 submitted by the petitioner in respect of
SMPAR for the period 09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023, which representation was
returned to the petitioner by the respondents vide letter dated 10.09.2023
calling upon the petitioner to submit the same to the competent authority as
per SOP and instructions issued by the BSF.
7. It is stated by Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents that no representation was ever made by the petitioner. This
submission is contested by the counsel for the petitioner by stating that the
petitioner did make a representation by drawing our attention to a
communication sent by the petitioner seeking audience with the Director
General of the BSF. On a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner,
whether the representation so made pursuant to letter dated 10.09.2023 has
been placed on record, the answer is in the negative. That apart on a specific
query from the Court, whether the petitioner has challenged the SMPAR for
the period from 09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023 in this petition or the connected
petition being WP(C) No. 2862/2025, the answer is in the negative.
8. Assuming for a moment, the petitioner did make a representation and
the same has not been disposed of, nothing precluded the petitioner from
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 340/2026 in W.P.(C) 5956/2025 Page 5 of 6
challenging the SMPAR for the period from 09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023
before this Court. In any case, there is a finding of fact by us that the
Additional Director General has decided his representation vide order dated
08.12.2023. We have not been shown that the order dated 08.12.2023 does
not relate to SMPAR for the period from 09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023. It is a
new plea, which is sought to be urged in the review petition and surely, in
view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours and the fact that the petitioner has
not been able to show us that pursuant to letter dated 10.09.2023, a
representation was made by him in respect of SMPAR for the period
09.07.2022 to 08.01.2023, which has not been decided, the review petition is
devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. We order
accordingly.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 /sr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2026
17:11:21
REVIEW PET. 340/2026 in W.P.(C) 5956/2025 Page 6 of 6