Monu v. Union of India & Ors

JUDGMENT (ORAL) %

17.11.2025

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶1A classic case, we may say, of much ado about nothing.

¶2The petitioner is a youth belonging to a humble rural background who desires to serve in the Indo Tibetan Border Police1. Consequent to Advertisement 11/2024, the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Driver). That he is qualified for the said post is not in dispute. The admit cards for the examination were issued nearly a year after the application on 3 November 2025.

¶3At that time, the petitioner came to know that his application was rejected with the note – "Name is incorrect. Kindly re-submit application form within 03 days from today." This communication,

1 "ITBP" hereinafter

according to the petitioner, was never received by him.

¶4Given the nature of the dispute in this case, we do not deem it necessary to burden this order with any detailed allusion of facts.

¶5The petitioner's name is Monu. He has no surname. The admission form, however, required a name and a surname to be filled. Both the columns have the name Monu filled in them. According to the petitioner, this was an automated result of the fact that the petitioner's name was Monu and that he did not have a surname.

¶6In any case, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner's name is Monu. We do not think that the time of this Court should be taken up by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶7The respondents' contention initially was that the petitioner had been intimated that there was a discrepancy in his name almost a year ago and the petitioner was directed to clear the discrepancy within three days but he did not do so.

¶8Mr. Vivek Sheel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions submits that this communication never reached his client.

¶9In any case, the fact of the matter is that the admit card was issued almost a year after the advertisement.

¶10The issue is trivial. Mr. Honey Khanna, learned SPC, on instructions, very fairly agrees that this petition need not be kept

pending, burdening the docket of this Court.

¶11We direct that the fact that the name Monu is entered in the name as well as surname in the concerned columns of the petitioner's application form should not be treated as a ground for disqualifying him from participating in the selection process.

¶12Subject to his satisfying all other requirements, the petitioner would be allowed to participate in the selection process.

¶13Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition in the above terms.

¶14This order is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case and would not be treated as a precedent.

¶15Let a copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the parties under signature of the Court Master.

¶16Learned Counsel for the respondents also agrees to inform the authorities that the petitioner should be permitted to appear in the exam.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J

NOVEMBER 17, 2025/rjd

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17370/2025 & CM APPL. 71710/2025 MONU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Sheel, Ms. Deepshikha, Mr. Anshul Mahajan, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Honey Khanna, SPC and Mr. Gaurav Khosla, GP for UOI with Mr. Devender Singh, DC JAG CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA