Delhi High Court
Anand Katiyar Ors & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors & Ors on 24 April, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5281/2025 & CM APPL. 24070/2025
ANAND KATIYAR ORS & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Adil Hussain Taqwi and
Mr. Shashank, Advs. for R-1
Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Kunal
Raj, Adv. for UOI
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. Nitesh
Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Amitoj
Chadha and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
for GNCTD/R-3 & R-5
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal and Mr. Vasu
Agarwal, Advs. for UPSC/R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
% 24.04.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The prayer in this writ petition read thus:
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing
Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated 12.04.2025 issued by
Respondent No. 4 (UPSC) to the extent it classifies the post
of Assistant Public Prosecutor under Level-08 of Pay Scale
as opposed to Pay Level-10 declared by GNCT of Delhi;
b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
Respondents to immediately issue a revised notification
classifying the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor under
Level 10 of Pay Scale and thereby under Group-A, in
accordance with the applicable government orders and
Cabinet decision no. 2199 dated 01.09.2015;
c. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order, or directions thereby quashing the Directorate
of Prosecution, GNCTD, recruitment Rules, 2021 and issue
the revised rules to reflect the up-gradation of the post of
Assistant Public Prosecutor from Group "B" to Group "A"
and placement in Pay Level-10.
d. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
Respondents to revise and enhance the upper age limit to 35
years for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, in
accordance with Office Memorandum dated 31.12.2010
issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG
& Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training);
e. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to relax
the maximum age limit for recruitment to the post of
Assistant Public Prosecutor to 35 years, in accordance with
the cabinet decision No. 2199 dated 01.09.2015;
f. Direct the Respondents to take necessary
consequential steps, including rectification of recruitment
rules, age limits, pay level, service conditions, and
promotional benefits in line with Group-A classification;
g. Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of
justice."
2. Learned Counsel for the respondents advanced a preliminary
objection that this writ petition is not maintainable, as the remedy with
the petitioners would lie before the Central Administrative Tribunal1.
3. Mr. Himanshu Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that the present petition was filed only because there is a
challenge to recruitment rules.
1 "the Tribunal", hereinafter
4. The 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has clarified in L.
Chandra Kumar v UOI2 that every matter which falls within the
scope of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19853 would
have to be first filed before the Tribunal and that this Court cannot act
as a Court of first instance in such case. On the aspect of whether the
Tribunal can entertain a challenge to the validity of rules, the Supreme
Court has clarified that the Tribunal is not only empowered to
entertain a challenge to the validity of rules but is also empowered to
entertain a challenge to the validity of parliamentary legislations, so
long as the challenge falls within the scope of Section 19 of the Act of
1985. The only embargo in that regard is that the challenge is to a
provision of the Act of 1985 itself as the Tribunal is a creature of the
said statute.
5. As such, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L.
Chandra Kumar, this Court cannot entertain this writ petition as a
Court of first instance.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the
petitioners to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 24, 2025/aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
2 (1997) 3 SCC 261
3 "the Act of 1985", hereinafter
