Affected third parties must file fresh Original Applications before the Tribunal rather than impleadment in writ petitions.

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding seniority.

Various third parties sought to intervene or implead themselves, claiming the Tribunal's judgment adversely affected their seniority despite not being parties to the original proceedings.

An interim order had been protecting the petitioners since 22 August 2024.

1. Whether persons who were not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal but are adversely affected by its judgment should move the High Court or file a fresh Original Application before the Tribunal.

2. Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Tribunal while maintaining interim protection.

The Court applied the precedent established by the Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 473, recently followed in Dr. Jiji K.S. v. Shibu K. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 324, holding that an affected person who was not a party to the original Tribunal proceedings must move the Tribunal by way of a fresh Original Application.

The Court invoked the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) to justify the continuation of interim relief during the transition of forums.

The Court observed that under the prevailing Supreme Court jurisprudence (K. Ajit Babu), the petitioners and intervenors had an alternative and substantive remedy before the Tribunal.

To ensure the petitioners were not left remediless during the filing period, and citing the principle that court processes should not prejudice litigants, the Court extended the existing interim order for a limited period of three weeks to allow the Tribunal to consider a fresh prayer for interim relief.

The Court held that the interim order dated 22 August 2024 shall remain operational until the Tribunal decides on the prayer for interim relief.