Naveen Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

(48) NAVEEN GUPTA..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj K. Srivastava and Ms. Sakshi M., Advs. with petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS...... Respondents Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Sing Rudy, SPC with Mr. Aakash Meena, G.P. and Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated November 07, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 351/2023, whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

2. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.3 for filling one post of Modeller W.P.(C) 16266/2023 Page 2 Grade-II (Unreserved), he had applied along with 33 other candidates. The Call Letters were issued to six candidates for practical test. On the basis of practical test, two candidates were found suitable. One was Sh.Avijit Mondal and second was the petitioner herein. As far as Sh. Avijit Mondal, candidature at Serial No. 1 is concerned, he was not found eligible for grant of age relaxation. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there was no clarity about his educational qualification. On the aspect of the limitation and on merit, the Tribunal has in paragraphs 5 and 6 stated as under:-

W.P.(C) 16266/2023 Page 3

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner before us is also that the petitioner was called for interview on February 09, 2015. The respondents for the reasons best known to them, had not declared the result. He submits that, between the years 2017-2019, the petitioner did made representations to the different functionaries with regard to the action of the respondents in not declaring the result.

4. It is also his submission that the petitioner had also visited the office of the respondent No.2 and agitated the issue of his non-appointment. Thereafter on January 31, 2022, the petitioner had invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought information.

5. The respondent No.3 had given reply to the RTI application on February 18, 2022 and immediately thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) 11763/2022 which was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. He states, the O.A. was not barred by limitation which can result in the dismissal of the O.A. Insofar as the issue on merit is concerned, he states that there is no issue with regard to the qualification of the petitioner and as such there was no reason for the respondents not to appoint the petitioner when Sh. Mondal was over aged. He also relies upon the following judgment in support of his contentions:i.Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47. ii.Union of India v. Uzair Imran and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1308.

6. We are not convinced by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that, he having appeared in the W.P.(C) 16266/2023 Page 4 interview on February 09, 2015, could have waited for a reasonable period but surely not for two years after the interview to make a representation only on October 26, 2017. In fact, the petitioner continued to make representations without approaching the Court of law/Judicial Forum. It is conceded position of law that, continuous representations would not extend the limitation. Even the provisions of RTI Act were invoked only in the year 2022 i.e., after more than 1½ years from the date of last representation i.e., August 05, 2019 and after almost seven years from the date of interview. The Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., (1989) 4 SCC 582, while interpreting the Section of 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act has stated as under:-

7. We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the O.A. Even on merit since there was an issue with regard to the qualification of the petitioner. In any case, we are of the view as the subject selection relates back to the year 2013 and it is not the case of the petitioner that some third person has been appointed on the post instead of him though he was at serial No.2, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in W.P.(C) 16266/2023 Page 5 exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the facts, and dismiss the petition. No costs.