High Court cannot act as court of first instance in service matters falling under Tribunal jurisdiction.

The Petitioner, an IRS officer, was denied promotion to Commissioner of Income Tax by a DPC held on 23.01.2009 because two of his ACRs (2003-04 and 2005-06) were below the "Very Good" benchmark. These ACRs had not been communicated to him.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2009 directed a review DPC to ignore these ACRs and consider preceding ones.

The Delhi High Court upheld this in 2010.

The Petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that a subsequent review DPC in December 2010 again erroneously considered those same ACRs in violation of the previous court orders.

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition as a court of first instance in a service matter falling under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal

2. Whether the decision of the review DPC dated 27.12.2010 was in compliance with the court’s earlier directions

The court primarily applied the constitutional principle established by the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261.

This precedent dictates that the Tribunals created under Articles 323-A and 323-B act as the "only courts of first instance" for matters within their jurisdiction. Consequently, litigants are proscribed from directly approaching High Courts under Article 226, overlooking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, except when the parent statute of the Tribunal itself is challenged.

The court reasoned that since the grievance involves the correctness of a DPC meeting (a service matter regulated by Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985), the Petitioner must first approach the CAT.

The court noted that the validity of the December 2010 DPC had never been examined by the Tribunal. If the High Court were to adjudicate the merits of the DPC's decision now, it would impermissibly act as a court of first instance, violating the mandate in L. Chandra Kumar.

While acknowledging the petition had been pending since 2021, the court invoked the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) to avoid further procedural delays.

The court declined to express an opinion on the merits but directed the Registry to transmit the record of the writ petition to the Tribunal to be registered as a "Transferred Application". The Tribunal was requested to dispose of the matter within six months, treating the existing record as the official record to avoid fresh pleadings. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the parties to appear before the CAT on 05.05.2026.