W.P.(C)/819/2025 of MANISH KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 819/2025, CM APPL. 4056/2025, CM APPL. 4057/2025& CM APPL. 4058/2025& CM APPL. 4058/2025

MANISH KUMAR.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Moni Cinmoy and Mr. RahulRanjan Verma, Advocates.Through:Mr. Moni Cinmoy and Mr. RahulRanjan Verma, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS......Respondents

Through:Mr. Sumit Batra, Advocate for R-2.2.

Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate forDMRC.Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate forR-4.DMRC.Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate forR-4.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

22.01.2025

1.The petitioner is working in the post of Additional GeneralManager (Legal), Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [“DMRC]. He has filedthis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to challenge an orderof appointment/extension of respondent No.4 as General Manager(Legal), DMRC. The office order is dated 09.12.2024 and extends theterm of respondent No.4 until 31.12.2025.

2.The reliefs claims by the petitioner are as follows:

“a) setting aside the appointment/extension of the Respondent No.4vide Office Order bearing No. DR/7661/2024 dated 09.12.2024 and allactions pursuant thereto; andvide Office Order bearing No. DR/7661/2024 dated 09.12.2024 and allactions pursuant thereto; and

b) declaring the Office Order bearing No. DR/7661/2024 dated

09.12.2024 as void ab initio, contrary to the DMRC rules and statutoryprovisions; and

c) pass an order thereby directing the Respondent No.3 to strictlyfollow the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of DMRC andselectionprocessprescribedthereinwhilemakingall/anyappointments in DMRC, including but not limited to the post of GMLegal; and

d) pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to strictly adhereto the seniority list published by Respondent No.3 to fill the post of GMLegal as and when the post become vacant; and

e) pass an order directing the Respondent No.4 & other Respondentsto restore the loss caused to exchequer or loss of public money arisingfrom such illegal appointments/extension; and/or

f) pass any order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fitand proper in the interest of Justice.”

3.Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advancenotice, raises preliminary objection that the disputes are amenable to thejurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal [“CAT”] as DMRC isnotified for the purposes of jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two writ petitionsfiled by the petitioner are pending before this Court. The first one isW.P.(C) 13738/2021, which seeks writ of quo warranto in respect ofappointment of respondent No.4. The order dated 03.12.2021, passed inthesaidwritpetition,specificallynotesthatthequestionofmaintainability is left open. In the second petition, i.e., W.P.(C)3840/2024, the petitioner has challenged an earlier extension granted torespondent No.4.

5.Inneitheroftheaforesaidpetitionshasthequestionofmaintainability been finally decided.

6.In the present petition, the petitioner has stated that he earlier filedproceedings before CAT challenging the original appointment of

respondent No.4 (OA No. 1360/2021), seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Pass an order directing the Respondents to grant applicant all thebenefits which he is otherwise entitled to in terms of the order dated23.02.2018andasdefactoHODsince23.05.2017withallconsequential benefits in time bound manner.

b.Quash/Set aside the illegal appointment of the Respondent No.4inasmuch as admittedly, the advertisement for the post of GM (Legal)was on direct recruitment basis but the appointment was curiouslymade on deputation basis for reasons best known to the Respondents.Moreover, the Respondent No.4 who was eventually appointed to thesaid post did not even possess the requisite qualification as prescribedby the service rule of DMRC.

c. Pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to consider thecandidature of the Applicant who is otherwise competent and wellqualified to be appointed to the said post GM (Legal).

d. Pass any order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fitand proper in the interest of Justice.”

7.The proceedings were disposed of by CAT vide order dated22.07.2021. On the question of challenge to the appointment ofrespondent No.4., the Tribunal held as follows:

“6. As regards the second aspect, the applicant was not contenderfor that post at all. It is not his case that he submitted any applicationin response to the advertisement. Therefore, it should not make anydifference for him, whether the respondent or somebody else isappointed on that post. At any rate, the Tribunal does not havejurisdiction to adjudicate upon the appointment of persons unless thechallenge is by another, who too competed for that post.

7. We, therefore, dispose of the OA declining to interfere with theorder of appointment of the 4th respondent but directing that therespondents shall examine the case of the applicant for payment ofamounts on his being kept in charge of the post of General Manager(Legal) and in case any amount remained unpaid, it shall be releasedwithin four weeks.

There shall be no order as to costs.”

8.It is evident that the petitioner’s challenge before CAT was notentertained on the grounds that he was not an applicant for the post as onthat date. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is at present

also not eligible for the post of General Manager (Legal), but seeks tochallenge the appointment of respondent No.4 on the grounds that theprocedure for appointment of respondent No.4 was illegal.

9.As far as those aspects are concerned, the petitioner’s earlier writpetitions are still pending, and will be adjudicated on the questions ofmaintainability and merits independently. The filing of the presentpetition is not evidently premised on any new grounds of challenge, andonly contributes to multiplicity of litigation. If the petitioner wishes tobring on record the fact of the subsequent extension granted to respondentNo.4, he may file an appropriate application in those proceedings.

10.The present writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to thepetitioner to take such alternative remedies as may be available to him inaccordance with law.

11.Pending applications are also disposed of.

JANUARY 22, 2025SS/JM/

PRATEEK JALAN, J