Dismissed¶20

Gaurav Tiwari v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2026WRIA/2698/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability/territorial jurisdiction and alternative remedy (CAT) objections to writ petition; ALP recruitment CEN no. 01/2024; CBAT T-Score shift-wise calculation and revised document-verification merit list sought; Section 14(1)(a) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Article 226 Constitution of India; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach appropriate forum; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; March 11, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum (Central Administrative Tribunal) ¶20

Gaurav Tiwari vs Union of India Thru. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum (Central Administrative Tribunal)

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction, the impugned orders having been passed at Mumbai. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material on record, the Court held that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to seek his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal concerned, in view of the alternative remedy already provided, and that there did not appear to be any extraordinary circumstances for entertaining the petition before the High Court.

¶19

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 2698 of 2026 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; March 11, 2026). Petitioner Gaurav Tiwari sought (i) certiorari to quash the order letter dated 22/01/2026 (No. RRB/MB/280/Corres./2026) passed by RRB Mumbai and the order letter dated 12/02/2026 (No. रेभबो/िबलासपुर/01-2024/ALP/79) passed by RRB Bilaspur (Annexures 10 and 11), and (ii) mandamus directing the Ministry of Railways to have RRBs across India calculate CBAT T-Scores shift-wise and prepare a revised merit list of candidates shortlisted for document verification for Assistant Loco Pilot recruitment notified via Centralized Employment Notice no. 01/2024. Opposite parties raised two preliminary objections: lack of territorial jurisdiction (impugned orders passed at Mumbai) and entertainability lying before the Central Administrative Tribunal, relying on Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; petitioner's counsel invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, submitting that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, and that part of the cause of action accrued at Lucknow where the first two examination stages were held. Considering the submissions and the material on record, the Court concluded that the petitioner should seek his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal concerned, the alternative remedy having already been provided and no extraordinary circumstances existing for entertaining the petition, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2698 of 2026

Gaurav Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Railways, New Delhi And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Maurya, Shikhar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

Petition has been filed seeking following main prayers:-

¶11

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order letter 22/01/2026 bearing no. RRB/MB/280/Corres./2026 passed by RRB Mumbai and order letter dated 12/02/2026 bearing no. रेभबो/िबलासपुर/01-2024/ ALP/79 pass by RRB Bilaspur. As contained in Annexure No.10 and 11 to the writ petition.

¶12

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the Ministry of Railways (Government of India) to direct RRBs across India to calculate the T-Score of the candidates appearing in CBAT, shift wise and thereafter, prepare a revised merit list of candidates shortlisted for document verification for the requirement on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) notified via of centralized Employment Notice no. 01/2024, in the interest of justice. As contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition."

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite parties has raised two preliminary objections regarding entertainability of this petition with first being that

¶14

WRIA No. 2698 of 2026

¶15

¶16

petition is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction since the impugned order has been passed at Mumbai and secondly that even otherwise, it is maintainable before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

¶17

Learned counsel for opposite parties has also relied upon Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to submit that even recruitment process can be challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

¶18

With regard to first preliminary objection, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since recruitment process was divided in three parts, with first two parts of examination being held at Lucknow part of cause of action accrued to petitioner. However, with regard to second preliminary objection, it is submitted that petition even otherwise would be entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since alternative remedy is not an absolute bar.

¶19

However, upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it would be appropriate for petitioner to seek his remedy before Central Administrative Tribunal concerned in view of alternative remedy which has already been provided and there does not appear to be any extraordinary circumstances for entertaining this petition before this Court.

¶20

In view of aforesaid, petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to approach appropriate forum.

¶21

March 11, 2026 lakshman

¶22

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaurav Tiwari v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Tiwari v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Achal Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Chunnan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner of Consolidation Indira Bhawan Lko. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 4 Others

Anand Mohan Sahai and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Edu. Lko. and 4 Others