Amending grounds of challenge without altering relief sought does not change the cause of action.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 11 December 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 398/2022.

In the original OA, Respondents 1 and 2 (applicants before the CAT) sought fixation of seniority predicated on the precedent of one "Sh. Somvir Singh".

Following a subsequent order by official respondents on 14 January 2025 rejecting Somvir Singh's case, Respondents 1 and 2 moved an application to amend their prayer clause to challenge the seniority list independently, removing the specific reliance on Somvir Singh.

The CAT allowed the amendment.

The petitioners (private respondents before the CAT) filed the present writ petition, contending that the amendment altered the nature of the cause of action and that the OA was premature as official respondents had not yet reached a decision on the merits.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in allowing the amendment of the prayer clause in the original application.

2. Whether the removal of reliance on a specific precedent (Somvir Singh) and setting up an independent challenge to seniority constitutes a fundamental change in the cause of action.

The Court primarily relied on the principles governing the amendment of pleadings established by the Supreme Court in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 1.

This precedent dictates that courts must be "extremely liberal" in granting amendments to subserve the cause of justice and avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Amendments should generally be allowed if they are necessary to determine the real question in controversy and do not cause injustice to the other side that cannot be compensated by costs.

The Court further applied the principle of dominus litus, affirming that the claimant has the prerogative to choose the grounds upon which they press their claim.

The Court observed that the fundamental relief sought—the fixation of seniority vis-à-vis the petitioners—remained unchanged after the amendment.

The Court reasoned that moving from a derivative claim (based on Somvir Singh) to an independent challenge was merely a "change of the ground" for the challenge rather than a change in the nature of the suit.

Citing LIC v. Sanjeev Builders, the Court noted that an amendment that constitutes an additional or different approach to the same facts should be permitted.

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument regarding the cause of action, holding that as dominus litus, the respondents were entitled to choose their legal grounds.

Finally, the Court noted that the petitioners’ grievances regarding prolonged litigation were not valid grounds to overturn a discretionary order allowing an amendment that is necessary to resolve the actual dispute.

The Court held that the amendment did not constitute a fundamental change in the cause of action or the lis agitated before the Tribunal.

The Court clarified that all legal defences remain open to the petitioners to be raised in their response to the amended OA before the Tribunal.