RS Jasrotia & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by order dated 25 July 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in OA 3000/2017. More particularly, the petitioners are aggrieved by notifications dated 5 February 2026, 3 October 2025 and 4 January 2024 issued by the respondent.

2. The prayer clause in the writ petition merits reproduction and reads as under: “In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is “the Tribunal” hereinafter most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Impugned Order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Ld. CAT, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 3000/2017 and Impugned Notifications dated 05.02.2026 (2 ineligible candidates). Notification dated 03.10.2025 (11 ineligible candidates), and Promotion Order dated 04.01.2024 (16 ineligible candidate), to the extent they grant promotion to ineligible candidates; b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to strictly adhere to the Notification dated 19.02.2016 and consider the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in accordance with the original eligibility criteria; c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling upon the Respondents to show under what authority the ineligible candidates, numbering 29 (as mentioned in Para No. 68) in total, are holding the post of Chief Loco Inspector; d) Direct the Respondents to grant promotion to the Petitioners with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and arrears; e) Restrain the Respondents from granting any further promotions to the post of Chief Loco Inspector pursuant to the impugned selection process f) Direct the Respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, including with regard to appointments, promotions and functioning of the said post g) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

3. The petitioners admittedly were not parties before the Tribunal in OA 3000/2017. The petitioners’ contention, as advocated by Mr. Mrinal Harsh Vaedhan, who appears on petitioners’ behalf, is that, on the basis of the order dated 25 July 2025, notifications 3 October 2025 and dated 5 February 2026 have been issued which prejudicially affect his clients.

4. There are two reasons why, according to us, the petitioners are not competent to maintain the present writ petition.

5. The first is that, a challenge to the notifications dated 3 October 2025 and 5 February 2026 cannot be directly raised before this Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[2].

6. Obviously, these notifications were not subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in OA 3000/2017, as judgment in the said OA was rendered on 25 July 2025, prior to the issuance of these notifications. If we were to examine the correctness of these notifications in these proceedings, we would be acting as a Court of first instance in that regard, directly contrary to the law declared in para 93 of L Chandra Kumar, which we may reproduce as under:

7. Secondly, the Supreme Court has clearly held, in K. Ajit Babu v Union of India[3] that, if an order passed by the Tribunal affects someone who was not a party before it, the remedy would be to move the Tribunal by way of a review application. We have also followed the said decision in orders earlier rendered by us.

8. In fact, in K Ajit Babu, the parties had moved the Tribunal by way of a Review Application, and the Tribunal had dismissed the Review Application on the ground that the parties would have to approach the Tribunal by way of a fresh OA. The Supreme Court negatived the decision of the Tribunal and held that it would be open to a person, who was affected by the judgment of the Tribunal, but was not impleaded before the Tribunal, to move it in review and urge, before the Tribunal, that the decision was incorrect. The Tribunal would then to take a view as to whether its earlier decision was correct or not correct, and act accordingly.

9. Mr. Mrinal Harsh Vaedhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has not been able to draw our attention to any judgment which entitles a person who is affected by an order of the Tribunal and was not a party before it when the order was rendered, to directly approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. In fact, any such attempt might be perilous in the teeth of the law declared in L. Chandra Kumar.

11. The decision in K Ajit Babu has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jiji K S (Dr) v. Shibu K[4] and Rama Rao v. M G Maheshwara Rao[5].

12. In these circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss this writ petition as incompetent.

13. Needless to say, our order would not impede the petitioners from preferring appropriate remedies as may be available in law.