1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/57/2025 Shri Deepak Kumar Xaxa and others Vs. The Union of India and others Mr. Terence D Cruz ... for the petitioners Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the Administration Mr. Gopal Binnu Kumar ... for the pvt. respondent September 01, 2026 [SR] Item No.11 1. The order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.351/833/2023 and the order passed on 13.09.2025 by the Tribunal in the application seeking review of the order dated 08.08.2025 are impugned in the instant writ petition. 2. We have heard the submissions made on behalf of all the parties at length. It appears that the seniority list dated 11.07.2019 has been challenged by the writ petitioners on the ground that the same has been prepared in violation of the Police Manual and the DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014. 3. It has been submitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioners that the relevant documents upon which the petitioners rely were not available to them at the time of filing the Original Application. It is only after the official respondents and the private respondents disclosed their documents before the Tribunal; the petitioners got the opportunity to challenge the same in the rejoinder filed by them before the Tribunal. 2 4. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal had not considered the documents and the submissions as well as the judicial precedents relied upon by them at the time of disposal of the Original Application. 5. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal. 6. Per contra, learned advocate representing the private respondents as well as the official respondents submit that the writ petitioners have made out a completely new case in the writ petition. The submissions made by the petitioners before the Writ Court were not made before the learned Tribunal. The respondents did not have the opportunity to controvert the submissions, allegations and other documents relied upon by the petitioners in the rejoinder. 7. No pleadings were made in the Original Application explaining the delay in approaching the learned Tribunal. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of N. R. Parmar stood overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment in the matter of K. Meghachandra Singh and others vs. Ningam Siro and others reported in 20205 SCC 689. 8. It has been submitted that in the absence of proper pleadings, the Tribunal could not have decided the matter in any other way as has been done. 9. Specific case made out by the respondents is that, the petitioners, despite being aware of the publication of the seniority list way back in 2016, did not take any steps to challenge the same in proper time. It is only in the end of 2022 3 that the Original Application has been filed. The same is barred under the provision of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 10. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the petitioners have consistently tried to make out a case that the seniority list that is impugned in the writ petition is contrary to the provisions of law. 12. The provisions of the Police Manual relating to seniority (2.21 and 2.25) have been harped upon and the judgment in the matter of Shiba Sankar Mohapatra and others vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2010 (12) SCC 471 has been heavily stressed in support of the submission that there is no delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the learned Tribunal. The Court clearly laid down that three to four years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority list and in case if someone agitates seniority beyond that period, he has to explain delay and latches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. 13. According to the petitioners the aforesaid decision was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal at the time of disposal of the Original Application on the ground of delay despite the same being produced before the said forum. 14. The judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Madalaimuthu and another vs. State of Tamilnadu and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 558 holding that it is only from the date of which the service of the employee 4 is regularized, the appointee can claim seniority over the appointees subsequently. 15. On a perusal of the order passed in the Original Application, it appears that the learned Tribunal recorded the facts of the subject case in details, but there is hardly any discussion with regard to the provision of law. The Tribunal primarily dismissed the Original Application on the ground of delay. 16. This Court cannot overlook the fact that admittedly the requisite pleadings were absent in the Original Application for which it may not have been possible for the Tribunal to properly appreciate the facts of the case and the corresponding law. 17. It is settled law that there cannot be any estoppel against law. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, this Court is inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition with the observation that it will be open for the writ petitioners to file appropriate application before the learned Tribunal disclosing all facts, figures and details which they intend to rely in support of their case that the seniority list had been prepared contrary to the provisions of law. 18. In the event such an application is filed, the learned Tribunal shall consider the same on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties to disclose their respective stand. 19. The learned Tribunal will not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove or in the impugned order dated 08.08.2025. 5 20. This Court also takes note of the fact that though the seniority list has been published but actual benefit of the said list, in respect of the private respondents, has not been given till date. 21. It is ordered that any steps taken by the authority for giving promotion to the private respondents relying on the impugned seniority list, shall abide by the result of the application. 22. WP.CT/57/2025 is thus disposed of. 23. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Amrita Sinha, J. ) ( Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)