Forum Shopping Denied: Delhi High Court Curbs Direct Filing of Service Petitions

In a firm reminder of the procedural boundaries governing public employment disputes, the High Court of Delhi has once again clarified that the High Court cannot serve as a court of first instance for matters falling under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Dealing with a plea by Meenakshi Tyagi regarding her service status at AIIMS, the Court underscored that ignoring established jurisdictional protocols only heaps unnecessary burdens on both the judicial system and the litigants themselves.

The Backdrop: A Failed Shortcut

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking a challenge to an order passed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on September 1, 2025. Interestingly, the petitioner had previously approached the Tribunal (O.A. 2625/2025), which had directed the matter to be treated as a representation to AIIMS. Despite being cautioned by the Registry regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioner attempted to proceed by arguing that the fresh order from AIIMS constituted a "fresh cause of action."

The Legal Consensus

Justice Prateek Jalan, presiding over the matter, echoed sentiments recently expressed by the Division Bench in cases such as Parikshit Grewal v. Union of India and Manish Kumar v. Union of India . The Court noted that since the seminal seven-Judge Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India , it has been a settled principle of law that for any matter falling under the ambit of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the CAT is the mandatory court of first instance.

The only narrow exception to this rule is when a petitioner challenges the vires (constitutionality) of the Administrative Tribunals Act itself. Barring that, the High Court remains closed to those seeking to bypass the Tribunal.

Key Observations

The Court did not hold back in its criticism of the persistent practice of circumventing the Tribunal:

> "It is a matter of some discomfiture to this Court that, nearly three decades after seven Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court clearly held... that all matters which lay within the province of the Central Administrative Tribunal... would have to be agitated before the Tribunal... petition after petition is still preferred in the High Court, in clear violation of the judgment."

Justice Jalan further highlighted the systemic cost of such litigation:

> "Such cases not only jeopardise the litigant’s interest by burdening them with unnecessary effort, time, and resources, but also impose an undue burden on the writ Court. This practice is strongly deprecated."

A Warning for the Future

The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition to properly approach the Tribunal. However, the ruling carries a stern warning: the High Court is now contemplating the imposition of costs on litigants and counsel who continue to file such matters directly in the High Court despite clear legal mandates.

To ensure the message reaches the legal fraternity, the Court directed the Registry to forward the order to the President and Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. By reinforcing these boundaries, the judiciary is pushing to ensure that judicial resources are preserved for substantive appellate review rather than routine service disputes that belong in specialized forums.

With this dismissal, the path is clear: for government employees, the Tribunal remains the final checkpoint before the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction can be invoked.