JUDGMENT Sharma, J 1. This application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.5.2011, by which the Original Application (OA) filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunal act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal), assailing the legality and/or validity of the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Pattern Maker-cum-Designer, was dismissed. It appears that the Tribunal has dismissed the OA on the ground of being barred by limitation as well as on merit. We have heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned ASGI. We have also hearing Mr. Somik Deb, Learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 4. 2. The relevant facts have been stated in the impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2011. An employment notice was issued on 2.9.2006 inviting candidatures for the post of Pattern Maker-cum- Designer, in response to which, altogether 48 candidates offered their candidatures. After short listing the applications, only 16 candidates remained in the fray including the present petitioner and the respondent No. 4. It is the respondent No. 4, who was selected and consequently appointed by appointment order dated 7.5.2007 and he joined his services on 17.5.2007. 3. Being aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4, the present petitioner preferred a statutory representation dated 17.5.2007 followed by another on 20.9.2007. His representation was disposed of by order dated 7/12-11-2007 and he was informed of the same by Annexure-11, annexed to the OA. 4. As per the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal act, 1985, an application under Section 19 of the said Act is required to be filed within one year of the adverse order. However, the petitioner did not do anything of this sort and instead kept on waiting and virtually accepted the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4. 5. However, after expiry of the period of limitation, he made an application to the authority under the Right to Information Act for furnishing the particulars relating to candidature, selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4. The said application was filed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. 5. However, after expiry of the period of limitation, he made an application to the authority under the Right to Information Act for furnishing the particulars relating to candidature, selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4. The said application was filed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It is on that basis, the petitioner counting the period of limitation of one year as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, filed the OA, without however, accompanied by any application for condonation of delay as provided under Section 21(3) of the said Act. 6. Above being the position, the Tribunal rejected the OA on the ground of delay but while doing so also decided the matter on merit, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner could gather the required information only on the basis of the application under the provisions of RTI Act, he could prefer the OA before the Tribunal only thereafter. According to him, the application having been filed within one year from the date of furnishing the required information, the said OA did conform to the requirement of filling within one year of the impugned order as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 7. Par contra, both Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned ASGI and Mr. Somik Deb, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, submits that the OA was clearly hit by limitation, inasmuch as, the statutory representation made by the petitioner was disposed of on 12.11.2007 and counting the period of limitation from the said date, the petitioner ought to have filed the OA within 11.11.2008. They submit that the OA being not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay, the period of limitation prescribed could not be extended by the Tribunal. 8. We have given out anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties. Upon such consideration, our findings are recorded below. 9. Unlike the writ petition under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India, there is definite period of limitation for filling an OA before the Tribunal, for which definite prescription has been made under Section 21 of the said Act. Upon such consideration, our findings are recorded below. 9. Unlike the writ petition under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India, there is definite period of limitation for filling an OA before the Tribunal, for which definite prescription has been made under Section 21 of the said Act. As per the requirement of the said provisions, an application is required to be preferred before the Tribunal within one year of the impugned order and if the statutory representation/appeal is not disposed of then within one year of expiry of 6 (six) months of preferring the said representation/appeal. 10. Dealing with the said provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the Apex Court has held that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Act, cannot be enlarged by the Tribunal, unless properly explained by filling appropriate application for condonation of delay. We may gainfully refer to the decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 10 (S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) AIR 1999 SC 3837 (Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors) (1996) 6 SCC 267 (State of Karnataka & ors Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors) and 1995 Supp 3 SCC 231 (Secretary to the Govt. of India & Ors Vs. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad). In all the aforesaid decisions, the Apex Court has held that unless the delay is explained, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, cannot be enlarged by the Tribunal. 11. As noted above, in the instant case, the statutory representation made by the petitioner was disposed of on 12.11.2007 and the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Act, expired on 11.11.2008. However, the petitioner filed the OA on 26.3.2010. In our considered view, the application under RTI Act, that too filed beyond the period of limitation, cannot extend the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 12. In view of the above, the OA filed by the petitioner was clearly barred by limitation. As noted above, the OA was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. 13. Before parting with the case records and dealing with the question of merit of the case projected by the petitioner, as recorded by the Tribunal, the respondent No. 4 had the requisite experience. In this connection, Mr. As noted above, the OA was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. 13. Before parting with the case records and dealing with the question of merit of the case projected by the petitioner, as recorded by the Tribunal, the respondent No. 4 had the requisite experience. In this connection, Mr. Somik Deb, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 referring to the employment notice, has submitted that it is the expression "Good knowledge" and not experience that had been used in the employment notice. He also submits that the respondent No. 4 did have the said good knowledge at the time of offering the candidature. However, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner disputes the same. 14. Another aspect of the matter is that while the respondent No. 4 was selected and placed at merit position No. 1, the petitioner was not even selected. 15. Be that as it may, in view of our findings on the question of limitation and without going into the merit of the case, we uphold the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the application stands dismissed. That shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed