THE UNION OF INDIA Vs. V.S. THIPPESWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, who were the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the CAT' for short) in O.A. No. 531/2013, have challenged the order dated 02.04.2014, wherein the CAT has directed the petitioners herein for the revaluation of the answer script of the respondent - Thippeswamy; if the applicant secures qualifying marks under the revaluation, the writ petitioners have to consider the case of the applicant for the post of Junior Loco Inspector within 15 days from the date of declaration of the results under the revaluation. The said order is called in question on several grounds, which we are going to discuss little later.

(2.) THE brief facts which are not in dispute between the parties are that, the respondent Thippeswamy was appointed as Diesel Assistant on 1.5.1994 and promoted to the post of Goods Driver on 21.5.2002 and later, promoted as Passenger Driver on 1.3.2011. He has also worked in a tenure post of Crew Controller from 14.4.2007 to July, 2011.

(3.) WE have carefully perused and re -evaluated the materials on record. In so far as the first ground is concerned, the respondent has admitted the dates of events with regard to the issuance of notification, conducting of the examination and results being announced. It is needless to note that the notification was issued as early in the year 2007 and written examination was conducted on 30.04.2008 and results were announced on 02.06.2008 and the panel was prepared on the basis of such announced results. Therefore, as on date 02.06.2008 itself, the respondent knew that he has secured 56 marks and he was not qualified for the selection to the post of Loco Inspector. It is an undisputed fact that the panel was prepared on the basis of the final results. Therefore, the cause of action arose to the respondent herein when the panel was released in June 2008. Since 2008, the panel would be there for a period of two years. Within that time the petitioners could have re -prepared the panel if there is any wrong or mistake being committed. But on the other hand, this respondent has filed his application after lapse of more than three years i.e., on 05.05.2011 and 27.03.2012 and later, on 22.11.2012. All these applications are barred by limitation. Added to that, he has not given any acceptable and proper explanation for the delay. The applicant (respondent) has not shown to us any rule, which contemplates or casts any duty on the petitioners for revaluation of the answer script even if the key answers given are wrong, after lapse of so much of delay. Of course the wrong key answers may 7 give rise to a right in favour of the respondent to challenge the same. But that should have been done within the currency of the panel, i.e., within two years.