Intra-court appeal against Coordinate Bench judgment seeking recall is not maintainable.

The applicants, including the SC/ST Employees Welfare Association of BSNL (Applicant No. 1) and two individual employees (Applicants No. 2 and 3), challenged a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on November 14, 2025, in OA No. 2905/2015, titled *Adesh Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*

This earlier judgment had quashed a policy dated July 16, 2015, of BSNL, which the applicants contended would lead to their imminent reversion and adverse consequences.

Consequently, they filed the present Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which the Registry initially declined to register on grounds of maintainability.

The primary reliefs sought included declaring the impugned judgment illegal, erroneous, and perverse, and affirming the validity of the applicants' promotions as Executive Engineer (Civil).

The applicants argued that they were not parties to the earlier proceedings and their service rights were adversely affected.

The respondents, including BSNL, contended that the OA was not maintainable as it amounted to an intra-court appeal, which is impermissible, and that the applicants lacked locus standi as "persons aggrieved" without a consequential administrative order affecting them.

They also highlighted pre-existing conflicting judgments from other Benches of the Tribunal.

1. Whether the Registry of the Central Administrative Tribunal can raise objections involving questions of law and refuse to register an Original Application instead of placing it before the Bench.

2. Whether an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is maintainable before the Tribunal when it challenges a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench, particularly at the instance of persons who were not parties to the earlier proceedings but whose service rights stand adversely affected.

3. Whether the applicants are "persons aggrieved" with locus standi to challenge the judicial order dated November 14, 2025, especially in the absence of any consequential administrative order.

4. Whether the present OA is barred by the principles of *res judicata* or constructive *res judicata*, given the prior litigation on similar issues.

The Tribunal primarily applied the legal maxim *interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium*, meaning "it is in the public interest that there should be an end to litigation".

It relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra* (1966 3 SCR 744), establishing that judicial orders bind strangers and can be challenged by appeal under Article 136, but not through writ proceedings before the same forum.

The principles laid down in *K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India* (1997 6 SCC 473) were considered, which state that if a subsequent application raises an issue covered by an earlier decision, the Tribunal should treat the earlier judgment as a precedent, either following it or referring the matter to a Larger Bench if disagreement arises.

The doctrine of constructive *res judicata*, derived from cases like *Henderson v. Henderson* (1843) and affirmed in *Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan v. State of Maharashtra and Another* (2000) 2 SCC 552, was applied to prevent re-litigation of issues that could have been raised in prior proceedings.

The Tribunal also referred to *Sonachalam Pillai And Ors. vs Kumaravelu Chettiar And Ors* (AIR 1928 MADRAS 77) regarding "identity of interest" and representation in litigation.

The Tribunal analyzed the maintainability of the OA by scrutinizing the nature of the challenge and the applicants' standing.

It found that the applicants specifically sought to declare a judicial order of a Coordinate Bench as "illegal, erroneous, and perverse" and to "recall" it, which effectively amounted to an intra-court appeal not permissible under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal distinguished *K. Ajit Babu* (supra) by noting that the applicants were aware of the prior litigation and chose to await its outcome, and that *Ajit Babu* (supra) primarily concerned review, which has a limited scope, in contrast to a new OA directly challenging a previous judgment.

The Tribunal invoked the principle of constructive *res judicata*, asserting that the shared and common interests of the present applicants (through Applicant No. 1 and Applicants No. 2 & 3) with the parties in the previous litigation meant the issues were already "sufficiently represented" and adjudicated.

The court noted that the applicants failed to demonstrate that their interests were adverse or that the prior litigation was conducted in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that no consequential administrative order (like reversion or seniority adjustment) *had yet been passed* against the applicants, making their challenge premature and impacting their locus standi as "persons aggrieved".

The Tribunal expressed concern over the official respondents adopting contradictory stands, acknowledging conflicting judgments while arguing against the maintainability of the present OA, but noted that this complexity did not validate the present OA.

Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the reliefs challenging the earlier judicial order were not maintainable.

It further held that the prayers concerning the validity of promotions of Applicants No. 2 and 3 were premature, as no administrative action invalidating them had yet occurred.

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed in its current form.