NARINDER SUDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Narinder Sudan has filed the present Original Application praying for the following relief's: -

(2.) FACTS as projected by the applicant are that the applicant applied for the post of Inspector against sports quota in view of advertisement dated 4.4.1992. The respondents have given appointment to one Shri Satish Rawat on the post of Inspector (Central Excise) whereas the applicant was denied appointment. Feeling aggrieved against the appointment, the applicant filed OA No. 1018/CH/1992 before the Tribunal. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 6.6.2000 by quashing the appointment of Satish Rawat. The order dated 6.6.2000 passed by the Tribunal has attained finality upto the Supreme Court. When the applicant was not issued appointment letter, he was compelled to file Contempt petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in December, 2003, and during the pendency of the contempt petition, firstly, the applicant was issued appointment letter on 26.12.2003 and thereafter another appointment letter dated 31.12.2003 with the direction to join his duties upto 16.1.2004 in the office of Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Central Revenue Mandal, Srinagar. In pursuance of appointment letter, the applicant joined his duties on 8.1.2004.

(3.) PURSUANT to notice, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant, wherein they have stated that OA filed by the applicant is barred by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They have stated that the applicant had accepted the judgment and appointment in entirety and never made any objection/representation during the intervening period despite the fact that the Tribunal had specifically asked the applicant to exercise his option in case he was dis -satisfied with the orders of appointment and the applicant remained silent on the issue. They have relied upon a judgment dated 1.5.1975 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maloon Lowrance Cecil D Souza versus Union of India, wherein it has been held that matters like ones position in the seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be reopened after lapse of many years at the instance of a party who has during the intervening period chosen to keep quite. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the OA.