Voluntary Withdrawal of Original Application with Liberty Protects Right to Re-Agitate Grievances Prior to Final Adjudication

The applicant, Aman, was appointed as an "Assistant" in the Sports Authority of India (SAI) through a selection process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).

He challenged an impugned Speaking Order dated 06.04.2026 and a subsequent Notice dated 08.04.2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Deputy Director, HR Division, SAI).

Following the issuance of the impugned notice, the applicant submitted a formal reply on 21.04.2026.

While the respondents were still in the process of considering this reply, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the orders and a direction to confirm his joining and continuation in service.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the quashing of the impugned Speaking Order and Notice while his administrative representation is still pending consideration by the respondents?

2. Whether the Tribunal should permit the withdrawal of the Original Application with liberty to file afresh?

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications for the redressal of grievances relating to recruitment and conditions of service.

The general principle of administrative law that judicial/quasi-judicial intervention is often premature when a statutory or administrative remedy (such as a pending representation) is currently being exercised by the party.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already responded to the impugned notice via a reply dated 21.04.2026 and since the respondents had not yet reached a final decision on said reply, the matter was effectively under active administrative consideration.

The Tribunal found the request to withdraw the O.A. reasonable as it allows the administrative process to conclude while preserving the applicant's right to challenge any future adverse decision.

During the hearing, the counsel for the applicant, acknowledging the procedural status and under instructions, sought to withdraw the O.A. rather than pursuing a merit-based adjudication at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to agitate his grievances in accordance with the law at a later stage; No order was made as to costs.