A challenge to proposed service invalidation is premature while the employee’s show-cause reply remains undecided.

The Petitioner, a CRPF employee, challenged the Departmental Rehabilitation Board’s recommendation declaring him unfit for further service and the Medical Invalidation Board’s similar opinion.

He contended that the assessments did not account for reports of abstinence and satisfactory performance, or properly apply the relevant medical-classification and rehabilitation provisions.

After an Invalidation Notice dated 23 September 2026, he filed a reply on 1 October 2026. When the petition was heard, the Respondents had not yet decided the notice.

1. Whether the petition challenging the invalidation process was premature while the Respondents’ decision on the Petitioner’s reply to the Invalidation Notice remained pending.

2. Whether the Respondents should be directed to consider the Petitioner’s reply, the applicable medical-classification and rehabilitation provisions, and the relevant behavioural and conduct reports before deciding the notice.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate writ relief.

Paragraph 22.5(f) of Standing Order No. 04/2008 addresses the medical classification and assessment of personnel with alcohol dependence or drug abuse, including consideration of treatment response, behaviour and relapse.

Paragraph 4 of the Policy for “Rehabilitation of Disabled CAPFs Personnel” dated 14 December 2023 requires consideration of rehabilitation through commensurate duties.

The Court did not finally determine the application or effect of these provisions; it directed the Respondents to consider them when deciding the pending notice and to issue a reasoned, speaking order.

Because the Petitioner had replied to the Invalidation Notice but the Respondents had not yet decided it, the Court accepted that the challenge was premature to that extent.

Rather than decide the merits of the medical or rehabilitation assessments, the Court required the Respondents to consider the reply, the contentions raised in the petition, the cited provisions and the behavioural and conduct reports, and to provide a reasoned decision.

It expressly reserved its view on the merits.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits, and the pending application was also disposed of.