Smt Preeti v. Government of India Ministry of Ayush & Anr

O R D E R %

19.08.2026

¶1The present petition arises out of the recruitment process initiated by Respondent No. 2, the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy1, pursuant to Advertisement No. 180/2025-26 dated 4th November, 2025. The Petitioner assails the decision to cancel the examination process, directed vide letter dated 16th June, 2026, and consequentially communicated through the Examination Notice dated 24th June, 2026. The Petitioner seek restoration and continuation of the recruitment process and declaration of the result; in the alternative, it is urged that a fresh examination be conducted and the recruitment process thereafter taken to its conclusion.

¶2At the outset, counsel for the Respondents raises an objection to the maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. the CCRH, is an organisation to which the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal2 stands extended under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19853, and that the dispute raised in the present petition concerns recruitment to posts under CCRH.

¶3The objection is well founded. By Notification S.O. 906(E) dated 22nd April, 2008, issued under Section 14(2) of the Act, the provisions of Section 14(3) were made applicable to CCRH with effect from 1st May, 2008. Section 14(3)(a) expressly confers jurisdiction upon the CAT in relation to "recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment" to any service or post in connection with the affairs of an organisation so notified.

¶4The present controversy falls squarely within that description. The Petitioner assails the cancellation of the examination process undertaken pursuant to Advertisement No. 180/2025-26 dated 4th November, 2025 and seeks, in the alternative, continuation of the recruitment process or conduct of a fresh examination. The challenge thus arises directly from, and concerns, the recruitment process for posts under CCRH.

¶5The position is also covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Parikshit Grewal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr4. The Court held that the expression "recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment" in Section 14 is of wide amplitude and encompasses disputes arising at different stages of the recruitment process. In particular, the Court held that any lis pertaining to the examination, or its results or outcome, constitutes a "matter concerning recruitment" within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) and

1 "CCRH" 2 "CAT" 3 "the Act" 4 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6939 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. is consequently amenable to adjudication by the Tribunal. The fact that the person approaching the Court is a candidate and has not yet entered service does not take the dispute outside the jurisdiction of the CAT.

¶6In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.5, the Supreme Court has held that the Tribunals shall continue to act as the courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution remains available in judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal, but cannot ordinarily be invoked by bypassing that forum at the first instance.

¶7In these circumstances, the Court does not consider it appropriate to entertain the present petition directly. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, without entering into the merits of the challenge, with liberty to the Petitioner to avail their remedies before the CAT in accordance with law.

¶8All rights and contentions of the parties on the merits of the controversy are left open. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 19, 2026 nk

5 (1997) 3 SCC 261 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010385692026 + W.P.(C) 11968/2026 & CM APPL. 55606/2026 SMT PREETI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijender Pal Singh, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AYUSH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Divanshu, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA