Re-induction After Acceptance of Resignation Is a Matter of Administrative Discretion, Not a Vested Right

The Petitioner, a specialist medical professional, was appointed as a Specialist Medical Officer (Anaesthetist) in the CRPF on 18.10.2022 under a two-year probation period

During his mandatory Combatisation Course (MOCC), he was repatriated on medical grounds due to a back injury and failed to complete the training

On 27.08.2025, the Petitioner tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the President of India, and he was struck off the strength of the CRPF on 10.11.2025

Four days later, the Petitioner submitted a representation seeking to withdraw his resignation and regain induction into service

The Respondents rejected this request via orders dated 17.12.2025, 13.01.2026, and 13.02.2026, leading to the present writ petition

1. Whether the Petitioner has a vested right to withdraw a resignation that has already been accepted and acted upon by the competent authority

2. Whether the alleged "deemed completion" of probation and medical reasons for non-completion of training entitle the Petitioner to mandatory re-induction into service

3. Whether the Respondents' refusal to re-induct the Petitioner was arbitrary or discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2019, which provides that the withdrawal of a resignation is not a matter of right but a discretionary power of the competent authority based on "public interest" and "administrative exigencies"

Established principles of service jurisprudence regarding the "severance of the jural relationship," which dictates that once a resignation is accepted, the employer-employee relationship ceases to exist

Principle of limited judicial review over administrative discretion in disciplined forces, where operational requirements are paramount

The Court reasoned that once the Petitioner's resignation was accepted and he was struck off the strength, the legal relationship with the CRPF was terminated

Consequently, any request for re-induction is governed by the DoPT OM of 2019, which is "enabling in nature" and does not confer a vested right upon the employee

The court dismissed the Petitioner's arguments regarding "deemed probation completion" as irrelevant, noting that the Petitioner was never formally confirmed and, more importantly, had voluntarily severed the relationship through resignation

Regarding the claim of discrimination under Article 14, the court held that the Petitioner could not compare himself to serving officers, as his status changed upon the acceptance of his resignation

The Court emphasized that in disciplined forces like the CRPF, administrative discretion regarding manpower and training belongs to the executive, and in the absence of mala fides or perversity, the court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the authority

The direct answer to the issues is that the Respondents' decision was neither arbitrary nor a violation of Article 14

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition and all pending applications, upholding the impugned orders dated 17.12.2025, 13.01.2026, and 13.02.2026