SAMAY SINGH MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dtd. 25/9/2024 (Annexure-P/22), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sitting Bilaspur) (for short the "Tribunal") in Original Application (OA) No.926 of 2017 (Samay Singh Meena v. Union of India and others), whereby the original application filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed being barred by limitation under Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short the "Act of 1985").

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nut-shell, are that petitioner's candidature for the posts of Group-D in South East Central Railway (SECR), Bilaspur was rejected by order dtd. 14/7/2015 (Annexure-P/18) by the respondents on the ground that he has not filled-up the application form in his own handwriting, however, by the said order the respondents has withdrawn the allegation of impersonation upon the petitioner. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred original application before the learned Tribunal on 7/11/2017 (i.e. with a delay of about 15 months) alongwith an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit stating inter alia therein that for want of enough sources and legal knowledge, he could not file the original application within time and, therefore, seeking condonation of delay in filing the original application under view of Sec. 21 (3) of the Act of 1985. However, the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dtd. 25/9/2024 (Annexure-P/22) rejected the said application for condonation of delay holding that cause shown is not sufficient and also dismissed the original application on merits also. Against which, present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's application for condonation of delay was duly supported by an affidavit and no reason or finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal while rejecting petitioner's application for condonation of delay except recording that no sufficient/plausible reasons/cause has been show by the petitioner for the delay occurred in filing the original application, whereas, the learned Tribunal ought to have recorded reasons before rejecting the application for condonation of delay in terms of Sec. 21(3) of the Act of 1985. As such, the present petition be allowed.