Neeraj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Neeraj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave and liberty to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law; no relief granted on the prayers to quash Advertisement No. 06/2025 or to stay the recruitment process, as the petition was dismissed without adjudication on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable, given the respondents' contention that the dispute — a service matter concerning a Central Government employee in the Ministry of External Affairs — has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. +1 more

Court's answer

Leave and liberty were granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition, along with the pending application(s), was dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J.; order dated 20.04.2026) — Neeraj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 5231/2026. The petitioner sought certiorari to quash Advertisement No. 06/2025 (Vacancy No. 25050601224) issued by Respondent No. 2 and mandamus to undertake recruitment to the post of Legal Officer Grade-I strictly under the Ministry of External Affairs, Legal and Treaties Division, Group 'A' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2024, honouring the 75% promotion quota and notifying vacancies to eligible feeder cadre officers before direct recruitment, with a stay of the scheduled interviews. At the outset, counsel for the respondents objected to maintainability, submitting that the dispute is a service matter concerning a Central Government employee with an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, placing reliance on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261. Counsel for the petitioner then sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the CAT; leave and liberty were granted, and the petition was dismissed along with the pending application(s). The Court made no ruling on the merits of the recruitment challenge or on the alternative-remedy objection itself.

$~89

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 5231/2026, CM APPL. 25559/2026, CM APPL. 25560/2026

& CM APPL. 25561/2026

NEERAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Ms. Smriti Parija, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC with Mr. Aviraj Pandey, Advocate for R-1 & 3. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 20.04.2026

This writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue Writ of Certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Advertisement No. 06/2025 (Vacancy No. 25050601224) issued by Respondent No. 2.

b) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to undertake the recruitment process for the post of Legal Officer Grade-I strictly in accordance with the Ministry of External Affairs, Legal and Treaties Division, Group ‘A’ Posts Recruitment Rules, 2024, by adhering to the 75% promotion quota, and notifying vacancies to eligible feeder cadre officers prior to resorting to direct recruitment;

c) Issue ad interim order staying the operation and implementation of the impugned Advertisement No. 06/2025, including the scheduled interviews and any further selection proceedings, during the pendency of the present writ petition

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 12:11:39

d) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.”

Counsel for the Respondents, at the outset, objects to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the present dispute pertains to service matters concerning a Central Government employee in the Ministry of External Affairs and, therefore, the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. ,¹ to contend that service disputes of this nature must first be agitated before the CAT rather than by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

In view of the above, counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law.

Leave and liberty as prayed for are granted.

Dismissed along with pending application.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

APRIL 20, 2026/ab

1 (1997) 3 SCC 261.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2026 at 12:11:39