Union of India and Ors. Vs Debojyoti Ghosal — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

Union of India and Ors. Vs Debojyoti Ghosal — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order of the Tribunal dated 02.05.2025 in O.A. No.350/1138/2016 set aside; writ petition allowed.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the respondent contended that such a petition is not maintainable). +3 more

Court's answer

The writ petition against the Tribunal's order is maintainable: relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India ((1997) 3 SCC 261), the High Court can undertake judicial review over orders/judgments of the Tribunal constituted under Article 323-A of the Constitution (which includes the present Tribunal), and the objection that a petition merely mentioning Article 226 is not maintainable was rejected as hyper-technical.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal erred in treating the WP.CT 100 of 2010 order as a precedent and extending its benefit to the respondent: the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had specifically recorded that the concession given in the peculiarity of that case must not create any precedent, and, per State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal ((2002) 8 SCC 158), an order/judgment ruled not to be treated as a precedent shows it was not passed in accordance with law; the Tribunal ought to have heeded that finding and not treated that order as a precedent.

Key takeaways

The limitation flowing from Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 stands in the way of the respondent: whereas similarly situated persons approached the Tribunal with promptitude (their matter reaching this Court in 2010), the respondent came out of his deep slumber only in 2016 (after 11 years) and filed the O.A., which was hopelessly barred by time; it is trite that continuous representations do not extend the period of statutory limitation.ratio¶32
The respondent/applicant is a fence-sitter: the Apex Court deprecated entertaining similarly situated persons who do not approach the Court with promptitude and within limitation, and per State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty ((2011) 3 SCC 436, quoted para 54) a litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from a judgment obtained by diligent litigants; the amount of delay in the instant case is enormous and cannot be ignored.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Union of India & Ors. v. Debojyoti Ghosal, WP.CT 259 of 2025 (Calcutta HC, Appellate Side, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction; heard and delivered 27.01.2026; Per Sujoy Paul, CJ., with Partha Sarathi Sen, J.). Petition assails the CAT order of 02.05.2025 in O.A. No.350/1138/2016, whereby a Railway Group-D select-list candidate (not a party to O.A. No.935 of 2008 (A. Tulsi Das)) was granted, as partial relief, the benefit ordered in WP.CT 100 of 2010 (Sk. Fakruddin). Held: (i) writ petition against a Tribunal order is maintainable — L. Chandra Kumar ((1997) 3 SCC 261), judicial review under Articles 226/227; (ii) the WP.CT 100 of 2010 order rested on a Railway concession expressly directed not to create precedent, hence not extendable — Rajesh Syal ((2002) 8 SCC 158); (iii) O.A. filed in 2016, eleven years after the 2005 Notification/select list, was hopelessly barred under S.21, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; continuous representations do not extend statutory limitation; (iv) the applicant was a fence-sitter — Mamata Mohanty ((2011) 3 SCC 436): one cannot wake from deep slumber to claim benefit earned by diligent litigants; WP.CT 49 of 2017 (Bipul Kumar Biswas) involved a different selection without fence-sitter/delay questions. Tribunal order set aside; writ petition allowed.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the respondent contended that such a petition is not maintainable).¶24
The court held
The writ petition against the Tribunal's order is maintainable: relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India ((1997) 3 SCC 261), the High Court can undertake judicial review over orders/judgments of the Tribunal constituted under Article 323-A of the Constitution (which includes the present Tribunal), and the objection that a petition merely mentioning Article 226 is not maintainable was rejected as hyper-technical.ratio¶24
2.
Whether the Tribunal erred in treating the WP.CT 100 of 2010 order as a precedent and extending its benefit to the respondent, despite the Co-ordinate Bench having recorded that the concession given in the peculiarity of that case must not create any precedent.¶30
The court held
The Tribunal erred in treating the WP.CT 100 of 2010 order as a precedent and extending its benefit to the respondent: the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had specifically recorded that the concession given in the peculiarity of that case must not create any precedent, and, per State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal ((2002) 8 SCC 158), an order/judgment ruled not to be treated as a precedent shows it was not passed in accordance with law; the Tribunal ought to have heeded that finding and not treated that order as a precedent.ratio¶31
3.
Whether the respondent's O.A. No.350/1138/2016, filed in 2016 (about eleven years after the 2005 selection Notification and select list), was barred by the statutory limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and whether continuous representations extend the period of statutory limitation.¶32
The court held
The limitation flowing from Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 stands in the way of the respondent: whereas similarly situated persons approached the Tribunal with promptitude (their matter reaching this Court in 2010), the respondent came out of his deep slumber only in 2016 (after 11 years) and filed the O.A., which was hopelessly barred by time; it is trite that continuous representations do not extend the period of statutory limitation.ratio¶32
4.
Whether the respondent, who did not approach the Court/Tribunal with promptitude while similarly situated candidates litigated (a 'fence-sitter'), could claim the benefit granted in WP.CT 100 of 2010, and whether the analogy of WP.CT 49 of 2017 (decided 24.04.2020) could excuse the delay.¶37
The court held
The respondent/applicant is a fence-sitter: the Apex Court deprecated entertaining similarly situated persons who do not approach the Court with promptitude and within limitation, and per State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty ((2011) 3 SCC 436, quoted para 54) a litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from a judgment obtained by diligent litigants; the amount of delay in the instant case is enormous and cannot be ignored.ratio¶37