Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1010 (MP)

Mohit Kumar Dongre v. Union of India

2011-08-27

AJIT SINGH, SANJAY YADAV

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 388 of 2011: whereby, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 3. Before Tribunal the petitioner was seeking direction to set aside the selection of respondent No.4 and promote the petitioner as Junior Engineer-II in grade Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 26.11.2006. 4. Being within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-II (train lighting) against 25% Rankers quota i.e. Intermediate Apprentice, the petitioner appeared in the written test held on 29.9.2006 along with four others against one post of Junior Engineer Grade-II reserved in favour of general category. Petitioner having acquired the requisite minimum marks, was empaneled for viva-voce. The final select list thereafter was drawn on the basis of principle laid down vide Railway Board’s Circular No. E (NG) I-98/PMI/11, where of respondent No.4 was placed at a higher stage in final written test examination on 9.11.2006. Admittedly the promotion order was not questioned by the petitioner within a short period of time or within the time stipulated under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 5. Instead, in the year 2010 invoking his right under Right to Information Act, 2005, petitioner sought some information on the basis whereof the petitioner is attempting to rack up the issue of promotion settled at rest in the year 2006, i.e. after a period of almost five years. 6. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 5.8.2011 dismissed the Original Application on the ground of delay and rightly so. Because subsection (1) of section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 stipulates :- “21. 6. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 5.8.2011 dismissed the Original Application on the ground of delay and rightly so. Because subsection (1) of section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 stipulates :- “21. Limitation :- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application:- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.” 7. A representation required to be filed under section 20 of the Act of 1985 has to be within reasonable time and a representation after five years of promotion cannot be said to be within a reasonable time. Though a shelter of Para 208.3 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume I is taken to justify a delayed representation. The said provision in our considered opinion is not applicable in case of the petitioner whose promotion is governed by section B of Chapter II of IREM-I i.e. Rules governing the Promotion of Group “C” Staff. Whereas para 208.3 falls under Chapter II section ‘A’, which are Rules governing Promotion of Group ‘B’ posts. 8. Even otherwise the claim for promotion is based on achieving higher marks in the written test. Admittedly, the final panel was drawn after the viva voce. As the selection as per Para 219 (g) of IREM-I is on the basis of over all merit as per the factors taken into account as provided under said provision. The names of selected candidates as per Para 219 (j) IREM-I is arranged in order of seniority with an exception that those securing total of more than 80% marks will be classed as outstanding and placed in the panel appropriately. in order of their seniority allowing them to supersede not more than 50% of total field of eligibility. 9. The names of selected candidates as per Para 219 (j) IREM-I is arranged in order of seniority with an exception that those securing total of more than 80% marks will be classed as outstanding and placed in the panel appropriately. in order of their seniority allowing them to supersede not more than 50% of total field of eligibility. 9. In the case at hand as apparent the select list is prepared on 9.1.2006 on the basis of Railway Board’s Circular No. E. (NO) I-98/PMI/II dated 16.11.1998. The petitioner submits that the circular dated 16.11.1998 and Para 219 (j) IREM-I is superseded vide Railway Board’s Circular No. E (NG) I-2008/PM7/4 SLP dated 19.6.2009 (referred in representation dated 18.10.2010, Annexure-A/9); however, there is no plausible explanation that the circular issued on 19.6.2009 wil1 nullify the selection held prior in accordance with the Railway Board’s Circular in vogue. 10. Be that as it may. Since there is a delay of about five years, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Original Application in limine. In this context reference can be had of the decision in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining and another : AIR 2009 SC 264 , wherein it is observed: “7., Every representation to the government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 8. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of ‘acknowledgment of a jural relationship to give rise to a fresh cause of action.” 11. In view whereof no interference is caused. 12. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of ‘acknowledgment of a jural relationship to give rise to a fresh cause of action.” 11. In view whereof no interference is caused. 12. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Ajay Pratap Singh for petitioner; Govind Patel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.