Affected Non-Parties Must Approach Tribunal via Review Before Seeking Writ Remedy Against Administrative Notifications

The petitioners, who were not parties to the original proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. 3000/2017, challenged an order dated 25 July 2025 passed by the Tribunal.

They also challenged three subsequent notifications dated 4 January 2024, 3 October 2025, and 5 February 2026, which granted promotions to the post of Chief Loco Inspector.

The petitioners contended that these notifications, issued pursuant to the Tribunal’s order, prejudicially affected their rights and promoted "ineligible candidates".

They approached the Delhi High Court directly via a Writ Petition under Article 226.

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court to challenge recruitment notifications that were not first adjudicated by the Tribunal.

2. Whether an individual who was not a party to a Tribunal proceeding, but is aggrieved by its order, can approach the High Court directly.

The court applied the doctrine of "Tribunals as courts of first instance" established in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which mandates that litigants cannot bypass the Tribunal's jurisdiction to approach a High Court directly.

It further relied on K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, Jiji K S (Dr) v. Shibu K, and Rama Rao v. M G Maheshwara Rao, which establish that a person aggrieved by a Tribunal's order who was not a party to the original suit must seek a review before the Tribunal rather than filing a direct writ petition.

The Court reasoned that under the L. Chandra Kumar precedent, the High Court cannot act as a court of first instance for service matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Since the impugned notifications of 2025 and 2026 were issued after the Tribunal's 2025 judgment, they had never been scrutinized by the Tribunal; thus, the High Court lacked the authority to examine them directly.

Furthermore, regarding the challenge to the Tribunal’s order itself, the Court noted that the petitioners’ proper remedy—as third parties affected by a judgment—is to move a Review Application before the Tribunal to argue that the decision was incorrect, as per the settled law in K. Ajit Babu.

The Court emphasized that allowing this writ would violate the jurisdictional framework of the Constitution.

It held that the petitioners must first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal via a review application or a fresh original application to challenge the notifications.

The Court clarified that this dismissal does not impede the petitioners from pursuing those appropriate legal remedies.