Dismissed¶¶14

Union of India v. Manikant Sharma

Bombay HC7 May 2025WP/5103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SSC (Western Region) recruitment - 50% benchmark eligibility criterion - Union of India's writ petition against CAT Mumbai judgment in Manikant Sharma v. Union of India (O.A. No.275/2017, dt. 24.03.2023) dismissed as withdrawn - unpleaded DP&T instructions dated 07.03.2012 cannot be used to challenge Tribunal's order in writ jurisdiction; remedy is review before CAT - liberty to file review within 30 days - Section 14 Limitation Act - Bombay High Court, 09.09.2025 - W.P. No.5103 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to the Union of India to file a review petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal within thirty days and to avail of remedies available in law, with the expectation that the Tribunal consider Section 14 of the Limitation Act. ¶¶14

Union of India vs Manikant Sharma — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's judgment is maintainable where the materials relied upon by the Union of India (instructions dated 7 March 2012) were not pleaded before the Tribunal; alternatively, whether the proper remedy is a review petition before the Tribunal. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

Where the Union of India's case rests on guidelines/instructions (letter dated 7 March 2012) that were not pleaded before the Tribunal, the remedy is to file a review petition before the Tribunal and not to challenge the Tribunal's order before the writ Court with the help of such unpleaded materials.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

Liberty was granted to the Union of India to seek its remedy of review, if so advised, by filing a review petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of thirty days.ratio¶¶13
The Tribunal is expected to take into consideration Section 14 of the Limitation Act while considering any review petition filed by the Union of India, since the Union has been prosecuting the matter before this Court.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn (Bombay HC, DB: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ. & Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; 09.09.2025) - Challenge to CAT, Mumbai Bench judgment dt. 24.03.2023 in O.A. No.275/2017 (Manikant Sharma v. Union of India & Others) concerning fixation of 50% benchmark for eligibility - Union of India sought to rely on DP&T instructions dt. 07.03.2012 prescribing minimum qualifying standards, which were neither pleaded before the Tribunal nor referred to in its order - Held: where a party's case rests on materials not pressed before the Tribunal, the remedy is a review petition before the Tribunal, not a writ challenge mounted on such unpleaded materials (Para 2) - Court declined to interfere without expressing any opinion on merits (Para 3) - Liberty to file review before the Tribunal within 30 days; Tribunal expected to consider S.14 Limitation Act as the Union prosecuted the matter before this Court (Para 3); petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies in law (Para 4).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.5103 OF 2024

¶3

Union of India, Through Staff Selection Commission (Western Region), Mumbai .. Petitioner Vs. Manikant Sharma and Ors. .. Respondents

¶4

Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Senior Panel Counsel, i/by Mr. Abhijeet Joshi, Senior Panel Counsel, for the Petitioner-UOI. Mr. Sanjiv Sawant with Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh and Ms. Bhakti Wast, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶5

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 9^TH SEPTEMBER 2025.

¶6

P.C. :

¶7

This writ petition seeks to challenge the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench on 24^th March 2023 in Original Application No.275/2017 (Manikant Sharma v. Union of India & Others) .

¶8

The Tribunal had considered the submission put forth on behalf of the applicant who is respondent no.1 in the present writ petition that fixing of 50% bench mark was not provided under the extant Rules or Regulations and by applying such criteria and holding all the applicants ineligible was, in fact, changing the rules of the same. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, the learned panel counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the instructions issued on 7^th March 2012 by the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions and submits that minimum qualifying standards for different posts were prescribed under the said instructions issued by the competent Authority. However, on a Court’s query, Mr. Rui Rodrigues, the learned panel counsel for the petitioner admits that

1/2

910-WP-5103-2024.doc

Dixit

these materials, which are tendered to this Court in the form of convenience compilation including the instructions under the letter dated 7^th March 2012, were not pleaded before the Tribunal. We also do not find any reference made by the Tribunal of these materials including instructions dated 7^th March 2012 in the order dated 24^th March 2023. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, the learned panel counsel for the petitioner states that these instructions were tendered before the Tribunal in course of the hearing but we are not inclined to express any opinion on this submission. If this is the case set up by the petitioner i.e. Union of India that there were extant guidelines governing the field whereunder minimum qualifying standards for different posts are provided, the remedy to the petitioner – Union of India is to file a review petition and not to challenge the order passed by the writ Court with the help of the materials which were not pressed before the Tribunal.

¶13

That being the position in law, we decline to interfere in this matter but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter with a liberty to the petitioner – Union of India to seek remedy of review, if so advised, by filing a review petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of thirty days from today. We expect that the Tribunal while considering the review petition, if filed by the Union of India, takes into consideration the provisions under Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the petitioner – Union of India has been prosecuting this matter before this Court.

¶14

Writ Petition No.5103 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Union of India to avail of remedy as available to it in law.

¶15

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]

¶16

[ CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶17

Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT ABHAY Date: 910-WP-5103-2024.doc DIXIT 2025.09.19 12:41:00 +0530

¶18

2/2

¶19

Dixit

Union of India v. Manikant Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Manikant Sharma

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sahil Mangesh Dhaware @ Brava and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. vs NO.6393739N, Ex-Havilkar Chandrakant Hausa Bapu Pote

Adv. Chetan Hemant Bhoir vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Pragya Pallavi Jitendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gtl Limited through Milind Bapat vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.

Gtl Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.