Dismissed¶41

Usha v. Dsssb & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/2589/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 620 days; OA 845/2024; Section 21 Administrative Tribunals Act 1985; Central Administrative Tribunal; certiorari jurisdiction versus sitting in appeal; Tribunal discretion; patently illegal; COVID-19 extension/amnesty of limitation; In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC 117; unexplained delay August 2022 to February 2024; EVGC Educational and Vocational Guidance Counsellor; DSSSB; Usha v. DSSSB & ANR.; W.P.(C) 2589/2025; dismissed in limine; affirmation of Tribunal order dated 11 September 2024.

What did the court decide?

Even granting the COVID-19 limitation-extension benefit, the amnesty available to the petitioner ended on 28 February 2022, whereas the OA was filed on 19 February 2024, nearly two years thereafter. ¶22

Usha Vs Dsssb & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal rightly refused to condone the 620-day delay in filing OA 845/2024, there being, in the Tribunal's view, no reasonable explanation for the delay from August 2022 till February 2024. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Even granting the COVID-19 limitation-extension benefit, the amnesty available to the petitioner ended on 28 February 2022, whereas the OA was filed on 19 February 2024, nearly two years thereafter.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

There is no scintilla of material anywhere on the record to explain the delay from August 2022 till February 2024, and the Tribunal is right that there is no reasonable explanation for that period.

¶30

Key takeaways

Continuous treatment of the petitioner's mother-in-law and the petitioner being a working lady with a small child cannot, in the absence of other cogent material showing inability to approach the Tribunal between August 2022 and February 2024, make out any case for condonation of delay.ratio¶32
The Court is not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's judgment; it exercises certiorari jurisdiction, the limits of which are well-known.ratio¶33
In matters of discretion such as the decision to condone or not to condone delay, the Court cannot substitute its view for the view held by the Tribunal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.) affirms, in its entirety, the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 11 September 2024 refusing to condone a 620-day delay in filing OA 845/2024 and dismissing it. The examination result had been declared on 9 April 2019, so the one-year window under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 expired on 8 April 2020; even crediting the COVID-19 limitation amnesty flowing from the Supreme Court's orders (In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2022) 3 SCC 117), that amnesty ended on 28 February 2022, leaving the OA filed on 19 February 2024 nearly two years late. The medical episodes pleaded (mother-in-law's cancer surgery in August 2022; mother's two-day hospitalisation between 4 and 6 December 2022) and the petitioner's continued treatment, employment and childcare responsibilities left the August 2022–February 2024 gap wholly unexplained and could not justify condonation. Exercising certiorari jurisdiction, the Court held that it does not sit in appeal over the Tribunal and cannot substitute its view for the Tribunal's discretion in matters such as condonation of delay; intervention is warranted only where the Tribunal acts patently illegally. Writ petition dismissed in limine.

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2589/2025 & CM APPL. 12307/2025

¶4

USHA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. S.N. Sharma, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

DSSSB & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶11

% 03.03.2025

¶12

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶13

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 11 September 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ , whereby the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 620 days in filing the OA 845/2024 and has therefore dismissed the OA on the ground of delay.

¶14

2. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, permits an OA to be filed within one year of the arising of the cause of action.

¶15

1 “the Tribunal” , hereinafter

¶16

Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 2589/2025

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Da te:0 5.03.2025 17:15:42

¶19

3. The result of the examination with which the petitioner was aggrieved was declared on 9 April 2019. The petitioner’s grievance is that she had not been short-listed for the post of Educational and Vocational Guidance Counsellor A (EVGC) for which the selection was held.

¶20

4. Reckoned from 9 April 2019, one year would elapse on 8 April 2020. The OA came to be filed on 19 February 2024.

¶21

5. Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, by 8 April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had struck and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of extension of the period of limitation during the currency of the pandemic applying the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re²

¶22

6. Even reckoned on that count, the amnesty available to the petitioner on account of the COVID-19 pandemic would come to an end on 28 February 2022. The OA has come to be filed on 19 February 2024, nearly two years thereafter.

¶23

7. Apropos this period, Mr Sharma submits that the petitioner’s mother-in-law was operated for cancer.

¶24

8. Mr. Sharma has shown us the prescription which indicates that

¶25

Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 2589/2025 Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Da te:0 5.03.2025 17:15:42

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

the petitioner’s mother-in-law was operated in August 2022.

¶28

9. There is no scintilla of material anywhere on the record to explain the delay from August 2022 till February 2024.

¶29

10. Mr. Sharma has also drawn our attention to a discharge card indicating that the petitioner’s mother was hospitalised for two days between 4 December 2022 and 6 December 2022.

¶30

11. Clearly, the Tribunal is right in its view that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay from August 2022 till February 2024 when the OA came to be filed.

¶31

12. Mr. Sharma’s contention is that the petitioner’s mother-in-law is under continuous treatment and that the petitioner is a working lady with a small child.

¶32

13. These factors, in our view, in the absence of any other cogent material which would make out a case of inability on the petitioner’s part to approach the Tribunal for nearly a year and a half between August 2022 and February 2024, cannot make out any case for condonation of delay.

¶33

14. We are not sitting in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal. We exercise certiorari jurisdiction. The limits of certiorari jurisdiction are well-known.

¶34

2 (2022) 3 SCC 117

¶35

Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 2589/2025

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Da te:0 5.03.2025 17:15:42

¶38

15. We cannot substitute our view for the view held by the Tribunal especially in matters of discretion such as the decision to condone or not to condone the delay.

¶39

16. In such matters, it is only if the Tribunal has acted in a patently illegal manner that this Court can step in.

¶40

17. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal which stands affirmed in its entirety.

¶41

18. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine .

¶42

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶43

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

¶44

MARCH 3, 2025 / AS