Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P.(C)-943/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Prakhar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Raj Kumar Maurya, Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr. Manit Moorjani, Mr. Om Sudhir, Mr. Tushar Sharma, Mr. Rohit Kumar Ray, Mr. Madhav, Rishi Kumar, Neeraj Kumar Bhati
A party cannot challenge a subsequent recruitment advertisement after voluntarily abandoning a stay of compulsory retirement.
Headnote:The writ challenges two orders from the Central Administrative Tribunal concerning interim relief in the applicant's compulsive retirement case. The Court found no substantial grounds for interference, holding that prior abandoned petitions affect current claims. The Court concluded dismissing the writ petition and associated applications for lack of merit. Final outcome echoing: 'this writ petition, as well as MA 4707/2024 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, stand dismissed.'
“In these circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and set aside the impugned order dated Signature Not VeriWfie.dP.(C) 943/2025 Page 1 of 8 Digitally Signed By:AJIT
08.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CAT in OA No. 4354 of 2024 (Annexure P-1) to the extent the order has declined to grant interim relief to the Petitioner;
b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Ld. CAT in OA No. 4354 of 2024 (Annexure P-2) to the extent the order has declined to grant interim relief to the Petitioner;”
2. At the outset, Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a typographical error in prayer (b) of the writ petition in which the date “08.11.2024” should be read as “19.12.2024”.
3. Accordingly, we treat prayer (b) as corrected by replacing the date “08.11.2024” with “19.12.2024”.
4. The writ petition, therefore, challenges two orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, [“the Tribunal”, hereinafter] in OA 4354/2024. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the said orders, thus:
Order Dated 08/11/2024 “M.A. No. 4112/2024
1. By way of the captioned M.A. the applicants seeks certain exemptions.
2. The M.A. is allowed subject to just exceptions.
O.A. No. 4354/2024
1. Heard.
Signature Not VeriWfie.dP.(C) 943/2025 Page 2 of 8
2. Issue notice.
3. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents on advance service accept notice.
4. They seek and are allowed 4 weeks' time to file reply. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks and is allowed a weeks'
time to file rejoinder.
5. In the facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants does not press for grant of interim relief, however, with liberty to approach this Tribunal if occasion arises, before the next date of hearing.
6. List on 19.12.2024.”
Order Dated 19/12/2024 “M.A. Nos. 4705/2024, 4706/2024, 4707/2024 & 4708/2024 Issue notice.
2. Let the reply in the OA filed on behalf of the respondents be placed on record, which is stated to be file.
3. List on 30.01.2025.”
5. The order dated 8 November 2024 is an order passed on consent. By the said order, the petitioner chose not to press the prayer for interim relief advanced by him in the OA, and was granted liberty to file an appropriate application if the occasion arose. Quite obviously, this order brooks no challenge.
6. The order dated 19 December 2024 merely issues notice on the miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioner and directs them to be re-listed. Of these applications, MA 4705/2024, MA 4706/2024 and MA 4707/2024 were merely formal applications, and the only Signature Not VeriWfie.dP.(C) 943/2025 Page 3 of 8 Digitally Signed By:AJIT substantial application, which sought interim relief, was MA
4707/2024.
7. The order dated 19 December 2024 does not decide any of these applications. It does not even express a prima facie view thereon. It merely issues notices on the applications, returnable for 30 January
2025.
8. We doubt if the Supreme Court, when, in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI, [(1997) 3 SCC 261], holding that orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal could be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ever envisaged challenges against orders merely issuing notice.
9. We, have heard Mr. Tripathi on the aspect of maintainability of this petition, against such an order. We also put it to Mr. Tripathi that if he was pressing this petition, we would be inclined to hear him on the issue of whether the interim relief sought by the petitioner in MA
4707/2024 was at all justified on merits. He agreed.
10. With consent of Mr. Tripathi, therefore, we have heard him both on the aspect of maintainability of this writ petition as well as on the merits of his challenge on the prayer contained in MA 4707/20
