At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL
By, MEMBER (J) & THE HONOURABLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU
By, MEMBER (A)
For the Appearing Parties: N.P. Mittal, Advocate.
1. In this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, case of the applicant Shamsher Singh is that he was initially engaged under Reserved Training Pool TOA in erstwhile Telecom Department (DoT) in the year 1984. He was regularized as Clerk w.e.f. 26.2.1985. The applicant is 45% orthopedically handicapped as per certificate dated 12.9.1983 (Annexure A-5). The applicant has been receiving handicapped allowance. The applicant appeared in JTO Departmental Competitive Examination held on 15/16.05.1999 under 15% quota of Physically Handicapped (PH). Result dated 15.12.1999 of the said examination (part of information Annexure A-6 received under the RTI Act) was declared by respondent no. 3 DoT. However, all the 5 vacancies of PH quota remained unfilled and are still lying vacant. The applicant gathered that he qualified the examination by securing 80 marks in all the four papers. However, his case has not been considered in the right perspective. The applicant made representations. Reference has also been made to letter dated 17/25.03.2004 (Annexure A-3) intimating that there were no instructions from BSNL for review to result of JTO examination held in the year 1999 against PH quota. Instructions of BSNL in letter dated 13.02.2004 are for Graduate Engineer JTO 2002 and effective from the date of issue of the letter.
2. The applicant has interalia prayed that letter (Annexure A-3) be held not applicable to the case of the applaint and be declared as nullity and respondents be directed to review result of the applicant of the aforesaid examination against 5 posts of PH quota which are still lying vacant and being Scheduled Caste candidate, he be also considered for relaxation as per letter dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure A-9).
3. Alongwith the O.A., the applaint has filed M.A. No. 060/00741/2016 for condonation of delay in filing the O.A. In the M.A. also, facts of the O.A. relating to merit of the O.A. have been reiterated.
4. We have heard counsel for the applicant on the question of admission of the O.A. and M.A. and perused the case file.
5. Counsel for the applicant reiterated the version of the applaint pleaded in the O.A. and M.A.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the instant O.A. is barred by delay and laches and is also hopelessly barred by limitation. The applaint wants review of result dated 15.12.1999 of his examination held on 15/16.05.1999. The instant O.A. has been field on 02.06.2916 i.e. more than 16 years after the result was declared on 15.12.1999. In the M.A. for condonation of delay, no ground whatsoever for condonation of delay has been pleaded except narrating the facts and merit of the claim of the applicant. Limitation period for filing the O.A. was one year only i.e. upto 15.12.2000. Thus there is delay of more than 15 years in filing the O.A. after excluding the one year limitation period. The said long and inordinate delay cannot be condoned and that too without any basis. It is also well settled that stale/dead claim should not be entertained. In the instant case, the applicant has raised a very stale claim which is more than 16 years old. The O.A. thus also suffers from delay and laches.
7. The applicant was also intimated vide letter dated 17/25.3.2004 (Annexure A-3) that there are no instructions for review of result of the aforesaid examination held in the year 1999. Even thereafter, the applicant did not file the O.A. within limitation period of one year i.e. upto 25.3.2005. The instant O.A. was filed more than 11 years even after expiry of said limitation period.
8. Counsel for the applaint applicant submitted regarding limitation that the applicant claims only notional promotion at par with the successful candidates of the said examination and has restricted his claim for consequent arrears to the limitation period of 18 months preceding the filing of the O.A. However, this submission carries no weight because the relief claimed is regarding result dated 15.12.1999 of the examination held on 15/16.05.1999. Qua the same, the O.A. is hopelessly barred by limitation and also suffers from delay and laches It cannot be entertained as it pertains to a very stale and dead claim.
9. Even on merit, the applicant has no case. According to list of successful candidates of the said examination at page 31 of the paper-book, applaint was not successful in the said examination. There is no ground whatsoever for directing the respondents to review the result of the applicant for the said examination. No error or defect in the said result has been pointed out in the O.A. nor the applicant has sought quashing of the said result.
10. Counsel for the applicant contended that instructions in letter dated 13.2.2004 were applicable from the date of issue of the said letter and the same pertain to Graduate Engineer JTO 2002 examination and so the same are not applicable to the case of the applaint relating to examination held in the year 1999 much prior to the issue of said letter and, therefore, the same have been wrongly applied to the applicant vide letter dated 17/25.03.2004 (Annexure A-3). The contention is misconceived and d
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
evoid of substance. The respondents have not applied letter dated 13.02.2004 to the case of the applicant. On the other hand, the respondents have also mentioned in letter (Annexure A-3) that the said instructions contained in letter dated 13.2.2004 are for Graduate Engineer JTO 2002 examination and effective from the date of issue of said letter. Thus respondents themselves have not applied the same to the case of the applicant on these grounds. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the instant O.A. and M.A. which are accordingly dismissed in limine.