UNION OF INDIA Vs. NILUTPAL PATAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the railway authorities are questioning the legality of the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati ("CAT" for short) in Misc. Petition No. 119 of 2007 arising out of Review Application No. 4 of 2007, which, in turn, was directed against the order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the CAT in Original Application No. 114 of 2006. The case of the petitioners is that in the year 2004, the railway authorities issued the advertisement dated 12.6.2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Electrical Signal Maintenance Grade-III by indicating therein that four posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates. The respondent applied for the post and took part in the recruitment examination held on 27.5.2005 as ST candidate, and was declared successful in the written test whereafter he was asked to get his testimonials verified by the Railway Recruitment Board (RBO), which was duly done by him. Subsequently, he came to know that his name was not included in the select list on age consideration. He, therefore, filed his representation dated 28.11.2005 to the General Manager, N.F. Railway, but the same was not attended to whereupon he filed Original Application No. 320 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati ("CAT" for short). The CAT by the order dated 23.12.2005 disposed of the Original Application by directing the railway authorities to dispose of his representation dated 28.11.2005 by giving him liberty to file additional representation, if so advised. Additional representation was filed by the respondent to the railway authorities on 28.11.2005 by making a new contention that relative age cannot be a ground for denial in the matter of appointment The RBO by the order dated 22.2.2006 rejected the contention of the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed OA No. 114 of 2006 before the CAT, Guwahati, which by the order dated 3.7.2007 allowed the application by directing the petitioners to determine the eligibility of the respondent vis- -vis the other two candidates (who secured equal marks in the written examination dated 27.3.2005 on the basis of the marks secured by them in HSLC/HSSLC examination. After considering the decision of the Tribunal at the various levels of the railways authorities, it was decided to file a review petition. As there was delay of 90 days in filing the review application, Misc. Petition No. 119/07 for condonation of delay. The Misc. Case was, however, dismissed on 17.1.2008 by the Tribunal by holding that no sufficient case was made out by the petitioners to condone the delay in filing the Review Application No. 4 of 2007.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2008, the petitioners are now filing this writ petition. According to the petitioners, the Review Application was filed within the extended period granted by the CAT by its order dated 13.9.07 along with an application for condonation of delay and, that too, only as an abundant caution. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the application for condonation by holding that no sufficient cause had been made out by the petitioners to condone the delay. The petitioners contend that the dismissal of their application for condonation by overlooking the merit of the case of the applicants has resulted in perpetuation of illegality and gravely prejudiced their case. It is submitted that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, and the CAT has improperly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application for condoning the delay by completely overlooking the merit of the case.

(3.) Both Mr. D.K. Dey, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, were heard. The first contention of the learned senior counsel for the private respondent is that the review application was merely a subterfuge adopted by the railway authorities to deprive the private respondent of the fruit of litigation obtained by him from the Tribunal: the challenge to the legality of the judgment dated 3.7.2007 passed by the CAT is on flimsy grounds. According to him, the order under challenge here is bearing dated 17.1.2008 passed by the CAT refusing to condone the delay in filing the review application i.e. Review Application No. 4 of 2007, which arose out of Original Application No. 114 of 2006. His contention is that while the order sought to be reviewed had been passed on 3.7.2007, an application was filed by the petitioners for granting them four months' time to comply with the directions contained therein, but instead of complying with the said directions, they chose to file the review application along with an application for condonation of delay, which amounts to playing fraud upon the Hon'ble CAT. According to the learned senior counsel, not only the reprehensible conduct of the petitioners in representing that such extension was necessary to comply with the order of Tribunal whereas that representation had turned out to be completely misleading but also the utter absence of convincing explanation for the delay in filing the review petition, warrant dismissal of the appeal.