ANKIT vs SOURABH SHARMA

1

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

R.A. No.117/2026
IN
O.A. No.2675/2025

st
This the 21 day of October, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)

1. Sourabh Sharma
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma,
R/o C-101, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-
110059.
Presently working as Examiner of Patents and Designs,
Intellectual Property Office, Dwarka Sector-14, Plot No.32,
Pocket-1, New Delhi-110078.

2. Lakshmi Meena
D/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad,
R/o Flat No.I88, 9th Floor, Block-B, Triveni Heights,
Sector-16B, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078;
Presently working as Examiner of Patents and Designs,
Intellectual Property Office, Dwarka Sector-14, Plot No.32,
Pocket-l, New Delhi-110078

3. Raghavendra Singh Meena
S/o Sh. Ramdayal Meena,
R/o House No.184, Flat No.B1, S/F, Khasra No.189,
Kakrola Village, Shiv Mandir, New Delhi-110078;
Presently working as Examiner of Patents and Designs,
Intellectual Property Office, Dwarka Sector-14, Plot No.32,
Pocket-1, New Delhi-110078.
… Applicants

(By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. Shubham Bahl)

Versus

1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade,
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

2

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.

2. The Controller General of Patents,
Designs & Trade Marks,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade,
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Antop Hill,
S.M. Road, Mumbai-400037,
and/or Intellectual Property Office, Dwarka Sector-14,
Plot No.32, Pocket-1, New Delhi-l 10078.

3. Ankit Garg
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Sh. Rajinder Garg,
R/o D-144, Ground Floor,
Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201011

4. Saumya Jain
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sh. S.C. Jain,
R/o D-169, Pocket-7, Sector-12,
Dwarka, New Delhi-l10078

5. Sudhish Gaur
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sh. Sunil Gaur,
R/o Flat No. 206, Metro View Apartment,
Dwarka Sector-13, New Delhi-110078

6. Gauri Shankar
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Sh. Hukum Chand,
R/o D-408, Dwarka Greens Society,
Dwarka, Sector-14, New Delhi110078

7. Arpit Jain
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain,
R/o Flat No. 20, Plot No. 260A,
Olive Green Apartment, Kakrola,
Sector16, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078

… Respondents



DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

3

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
O R D E R (BY CIRCULATION)
As per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated
31.08.2026 passed in pending O.A./2675/2025, present
review application filed to the extent it takes the amended
O.A. and introduced a challenge to seniority list dated
23.04.2021, without first deciding the pending application
under section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in
bringing the challenge to seniority list dated 23.04.2021, has
been filed by original respondent nos. 3 to 7 in the
O.A./2675/2025.
2. The ground for review of order dated 31.08.2026 in
pending O.A./2675/2025 that the Tribunal did not deal with
objections raised by the Registry to application vide Diary
no.8016/2026 for amendment, challenging seniority list
dated 23.04.2021 and without dealing with delay of 1538
days in challenge made to seniority list dated 23.04.2021,
allowed the amendment on ground that same will not
change the nature of the O.A. The challenge to the seniority
list dated 23.04.2021, introduced for the first time by the
very amendment and allowed the stale claim, without
sufficient cause, caused prejudice to respondent nos. 3 to 7.
There is no apparent error in the impugned order dated
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

4

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
31.08.2026 to consider material on record and the matter be
heard on condonation of delay in challenging the seniority
list dated 23.04.2021.
3. We have carefully gone through the pleadings on record
including O.A./2675/2025, M.A./2979/2025 – application
for condonation of delay in filing O.A. and M.A. vide diary no.
8016/2026 in the O.A. to condone delay in filing the O.A. as
seniority list dated 23.04.2021 brought on record for first
time by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and order dated
13.04.2026, condoned the delay in challenging the seniority
lists of years 2021, 2023 and 2025 in the present O.A.
4. The fact of the matter, the original applicants in the
O.A./non-applicants in the present Review Application has
filed the O.A./2675/2025 challenging seniority list dated
24.03.2022, 01.01.2023 and dated 17.03.2025 and
implement law laid down in case of Raman Kumar Prajapat
vs. Union of India in O.A./748/2021 passed by Mumbai
Bench.
5. M.A./2979/2025 – application for condonation of delay
was taken up and notice was issued. The applicants in
present Review Application as well as original official
respondents filed the reply dated 08.01.2026 stating to a
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

5

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
provisional seniority list dated 01.01.2020 issued inviting
objections, thereafter final seniority list dated 23.04.2021
was issued. The other seniority lists impugned in the O.A.
are based on seniority list dated 23.04.2021.
6. Present review applicants/original respondent nos. 3 to
7 and official respondents were heard on 13.04.2026 in
M.A./2979/2025 – application for condonation of delay in
the O.A.
7. The original respondents raised the ground that
seniority list was finalized in year 2021, i.e., 23.04.2016 and
subsequent impugned seniority lists are continuation of
seniority list of year 2021. The DB vide order dated
13.04.2026 in the present O.A., taken note of seniority list of
year 2021 and Para 24 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment in case of Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai ,
(2022) 12 SCC 579 , on the point of delay in approaching
the Court in challenging a seniority list.
8. Order dated 13.04.2026 passed in M.A./2979/2025 is
reproduced for ready reference as under:-
M.A. No.2979/2025 in O.A. No.2675/2025 (Condonation of
“
delay)
Heard Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr.
R. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and
2.
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

6

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
The instant MA has been filed by the applicant seeking
condonation of delay in filing the accompanying OA.
In the OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(i) Call for the records of official respondents dealing with
impugned seniority list;
(ii) Hold and declare the seniority list dated 24.3.2022,1-1-
23 and seniority list dated 17.3.2025 [Annexure-A1(colly)
Impugned] so far the official respondents No.1 & 2 have
placed the names of the persons in the wait list above the
names of applicants, who belong to the main select list, as
arbitrary, illegal and void ab initio.
(iii) Hold and declare that non-implementation of the ratio of
the order/judgement dated 26.9.2024 in OA No.748/2021
titled "Raman Kumar Prajapat Vs Union of India" (Annexure-
A-2), passed by Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal at
Mumbai, in case of the applicants as arbitrary,
discriminatory and per-se illegal;
(iv) Consequently, quash and set aside the seniority list
dated 1-1-2023, 24.3.2022 and seniority list dated
17.3.2025 [Annexure-A-1(colly) Impugned] and all or any
other such seniority list whereby the respondents No.1 & 2
have placed the wait list candidates above the candidates
of the main list with all consequential benefits.
(v) Also hold and declare that the applicants are entitled
and eligible for promotion from and prior to the date of the
promotion of the candidates from the wait list, including the
respondents No.3 to 7 herein;
(vi) Also hold and direct that the applicants are entitled for
the benefit of the ratio of judgement of this Hon'ble Tribunal
dated 26.9.2024 in ?? No.748/2021 titled "Raman Kumar
Prajapat Vs Union of India";
(vii) As a consequence of the prayers in paras 1(i) to (vi)
above, direct the official respondents above to conduct
review DPC for consideration of the names of the applicants
herein in accordance with the law and further order
promotion of the applicants from the date of their juniors
were promoted with all consequential benefits i.e., seniority,
eligibility for the higher post, arrears of pay and any other
due service benefits;
(viii) Award exemplary cost against the official respondents
and in favour of the Applicants;
(ix) The Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass any further
order/orders as may be deemed just and proper to meet the
ends of justice."
It is the contention of Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel for the
applicant, that the principal relief in the OA pertains to
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

7

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
implementation of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2024
passed in O.A. No.748/2021 titled Raman Kumar Prajapat & Ors.
vs. Union of India & Ors. by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal
at Mumbai.
It is further submitted that, in contravention of the aforesaid
decision, the respondents have issued seniority lists dated
24.03.2022, 01.01.2023, and 17.03.2025.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla &
Ors. vs. Arvind Rai & Ors., reported as (2022) 12 SCC 579,
particularly paragraph 24 thereof, and submits that the delay
deserves to be condoned.
Per contra, Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1
and 2, submits that the seniority list was finalized in the year
2021 and the applicant has not challenged the same. It is further
submitted that the subsequent seniority lists are only in
continuation of the seniority list of 2021. However, he fairly
submits that these objections may be considered at the time of the
hearing of the O.A. on merits.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 24 of Ajay Kumar
Shukla (supra), has observed as under:
"24. We may now discuss the law on the point regarding
delay in approaching the court and in particular challenge
to a seniority list. The learned Single Judge had placed
reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shiba
Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa (supra). Dr. B.S.
Chauhan, J., after considering the question of entertaining
the petition despite long standing seniority filed at a belated
stage discussed more than a dozen cases on the point
including Constitution Bench judgments and ultimately in
paragraph 30 observed that a seniority list which remains
in existence for more than three to four years unchallenged
should not be disturbed. It is also recorded in paragraph 30
that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond
period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and
laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing
satisfactory explanation. Paragraph 30 is reproduced
below: -
“30. Thus in view of the above, the settled legal
proposition that emerges is that once the seniority
had been fixed and it remains in existence for a
reasonable period, any challenge to the same should
not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has
laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list
which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years
unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4
years is a reasonable period for challenging the
seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of
seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

8

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory
forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.”
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a period of three to
four years is a reasonable time for challenging a seniority list, and
in case of delay beyond the said period, the applicant is required
to satisfy the delay in the present case.
In the present case, the applicant has challenged the
seniority lists of the years 2021, 2023, and 2025, and the
O.A. has been filed on 20.03.2025.
In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view
that the delay deserves to be condoned. Hence, the same is
condoned.
Accordingly, the MA stands disposed of.
O.A. No.2675/2025
Stand over to 09.07.2026. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
9. Vide order dated 13.04.2026, this Tribunal while
considering M.A./2979/2025, in application for condonation
of delay in filing the O.A./2675/2025 has already
specifically taken note of the fact and ground raised in this
Review Application that the present case, the applicant has
challenged the seniority lists of year 2021, 2023 and 2025
and O.A. has been filed on 20.03.2025 and condoned the
delay in filing the O.A. and allowed the M.A./2979/2025.
10. This Tribunal has already granted reasonable
opportunities of hearing to learned counsel for review
applicants and passed detail order dated 13.04.2026
condoning the delay in challenging the seniority list of year
2021, i.e., 23.04.2016. On the same ground, present R.A.
has been filed. In garb of present review application against
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

9

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
interim order dated 31.08.2026 (Annexure RA-1), whereby
M.A. filed vide diary no. 8016/2026, raising objection by
Registry regarding delay in filing the M.A. to take on record
the amended O.A., has been allowed.
11. The ground taken in the present Review Application
regarding delay in filing the present O.A. challenging
seniority list of year 2021, i.e., 23.04.2021 has already been
considered by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026, as
extracted in preceding paragraph. Thereafter, delay
condoned in filing the present O.A. against seniority list
dated 23.04.2021. The Review Applicants intend to re-open
the entire matter once again.
12. The power of this Tribunal to review its own interim
order in question is limited and Hob’ble Supreme Court in
case of Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra , ACR 2002 SC
2537. Their Lordships held that, “the power of Tribunal to
review its own order is limited. Tribunal could only interfere in
the matter if the error pointed out is plain and apparent. ”
13. In case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta ,
reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735. Their Lordships in
paragraph 35 have called out principles for a review of own
order and held that, “an error which is not self evident and
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA

10

R.A. No. 117/2026
In
O.A. No. 2675/2025
which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning,
cannot be treated as an error apparent in the fact of record
justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f) and an
erroneous order cannot be corrected in guise of exercise of
power of review.” Their Lordships in paragraph 35 (vii) also
held that, “while considering an application for review, the
Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to
material which was available at the time of initial decision. So
also Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere discovery of new
or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for
review.”
14. For all the reasons stated herein above, there is no
error apparent on the face of record in order dated
31.08.2026 passed in pending O.A./2675/2025 and in our
considered opinion, no interference in exercise of the review
jurisdiction is warranted.
15. Resultantly, the Review Application assailing order
dated 31.08.2026 in O.A./2675/2025 is accordingly
dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.




(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)

/dhruv/
DHRUV
MEHRA
2026.10.21
17:14:01
+05'30'
DHRUV
MEHRA