In a writ petition challenging an OA by the CAT rejected on limitation grounds, the Delhi High Court dismissed the claim for appointment from a nine-year-old extra panel of candidates, holding that the panel has not been exhausted and no vested right exists.
Application stands dismissed as the petition has no merit on limitation and on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2.
ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar with Mr. Mohit Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
O R D E R
%
05.08.2019
C.M. No. 28058/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6639/2019 & C.M. Nos. 28057, 28059/2019
The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 819/2019, decided on 19.03.2019. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application, wherein they had sought a direction to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioners by exhausting the list of extra candidates prepared for the
posts advertised by the advertisement in question issued in the year 2010.
The Tribunal has rejected the Original Application primarily on the ground of limitation since the panel of extra 20 per cent candidates, wherein the petitioners’ name figured, was prepared in the year 2010 and the Original Application had been filed in the year 2019. The petitioners sought to justify the belated filing of the Original Application on the plea that it was only in the year 2017 that the respondents sought to fill up the vacancies through a fresh recruitment process. The petitioners claimed that they learnt of the said process in September, 2018 and, consequently, they preferred the Original Application.
The submission of the petitioner has no merit either on the point of limitation or on merits. The cause of action of the petitioners, if at all, arose in the year 2010 or soon thereafter. Mere issuance of a fresh advertisement on 12.12.2017 will not give them a fresh cause of action since it would be unreasonable for anyone to assume that a panel prepared for 20 per cent extra candidates would remain valid for as long as 9 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents continued to operate the panel till 2017. If that is accepted as a reason to direct respondents to continue to operate the same panel, there would be no end and by that logic the panel should be continued to be operated till the same is exhausted.
The petitioners have not been able to point any vested right in them to seek operation of the stale panel which is 9 years old. During this period, a large number of other youngsters have become eligible to apply for and compete for the vacancies which may have arisen in the meantime and there is no justification to keep them out of the competition process.
Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others etc. v. South East Central Railway and Others etc., Civil Appeal No. 1136011363/2018, decided on 27.11.2018. This decision does not state that a panel once prepared could be kept alive ad infinitum till it is exhausted. Even in this case, the Supreme Court limited the relief only to those appellants who had approached the CAT contemporaneously. The petitioners, however, slept over the matter and did not raise any issue for 9 years.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
AUGUST 05, 2019 N.Khanna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a stale panel of extra 20% candidates prepared in 2010 remains valid after 9 years for fresh recruitment.
Whether the petitioner's belated filing of the application in 2019 is within the limitation period given the fresh advertisement in 2017.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dinesh Kumar KashyapReferred¶23
Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others etc. v. South East Central Railway and Others etc., Civil Appeal No. 1136011363/2018, decided on 27.11.2018
ANIL KUMAR
UNION OF INDIA
VIPIN SANGHI
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
