$~74 & 75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5^th December, 2025 + W.P.(C) 13738/2021, CM APPL. 56116/2022 & CM APPL.

22435/2025 MANISH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Mr.

Abhinav Akash, Mr. Hariom, Ms. Komal & Mr. Anuj Dhauja, Advs. with Petitioner in person.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vedansh Anand, SPC with Mr. Kush Garg, Adv. for UOI.

Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil) GNCTD for R-

2.

Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, Advs. for R- 3/DMRC with Mr. A.S.Rao, Dy. Gen. Manager (Legal).

Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for R-4.

+ W.P.(C) 3840/2024, CM APPL. 15766/2024, CM APPL.

15768/2024 & CM APPL. 22463/2025 MANISH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Mr.

Abhinav Akash, Mr. Hariom, Ms. Komal & Mr. Anuj Dhauja, Advs. with Petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Khushboo Mittal, Adv. for Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC (Civil) GNCTD for R-2.

Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, Advs. for R- 3/DMRC with Mr. A.S.Rao, Dy. Gen. Manager (Legal).

Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)

1. These two writ petitions are being decided by this common order as the facts and the issue involved are similar.

2. The W.P.(C) 13738/2021 is in the nature of Quo Warranto seeking setting aside of appointment of Sh. S.V. Kute (hereinafter „the respondent‟) to the post of General Manager (Legal) (for short „GM Legal‟) on deputation vide office order dated 23.05.2019 and thereafter on direct recruitment basis by office order dated 01.01.2021. 3. The W.P.(C) 3840/2024 is in the nature of Quo Warranto seeking setting aside of office order dated 01.01.2024 appointing the respondent on post-retiral contractual engagement to the post of GM Legal and offer letter dated 26.12.2023.

4. Advertisement dated 30.08.2018 was notified inviting applications for the post of GM Legal in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (for short „DMRC‟) for direct recruitment. The respondent applied in pursuance to the advertisement and vide office order dated 23.05.2019 was taken on deputation in view of the movement order on posting issued by Air Force Headquarters. On 16.12.2020, the respondent was relieved with effect from 23.12.2020 to join parent organization. Upon acceptance of terms and conditions stipulated in office letter dated 19.10.2020, the respondent joined on the post of GM Legal as a direct recruit.

5. Aggrieved of the appointment of the respondent on deputation vide office order dated 23.05.2019, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short „Tribunal‟) and the O.A. No. 1360/2021 was dismissed on 22.07.2021. It was held that the petitioner was not a contender for the post and the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the appointment of a person unless challenged by another who too competed for that post.

6. The order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the petitioner, instead by filing W.P.(C) 819/2025 the office order dated 09.12.2024 extending the term of the respondent till 31.12.2025, was questioned.

7. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition on 22.01.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. It was taken into account that the order dismissing the OA was not challenged, two writ petitions filed by the petitioner were pending and no new ground to challenge the appointment of the respondent was raised.

8. The intra court appeal (LPA 170/2025) preferred against the decision of the learned Single Judge was dismissed on 06.03.2025. The Division Bench held that in service matter the High Court cannot be approached at the first instance. Further that in absence of challenge to the order of the Tribunal dismissing the OA impugning the appointment of the respondent, the writ in nature of Quo Warranto at instance of the petitioner challenging the appointment of the respondent was not maintainable. It was held that the petitione