Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respective Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Challenge in this Original Petition is against the Ext.P2 order, dated 13.12.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.1088/13 filed by the petitioner. Facts of the case are that in June 2005, the third respondent invited application for appointment to the post of Senior Instructor (Fishing). In the rank list that was prepared, petitioner was included in the wait list and one Sri.Ranjith Ganapathy was appointed to the post from the main list. This was on 12th June 2006.
3. Appointment of Sri.Ranjith Ganapathy was challenged by the two others in O.A.499/06 filed by them before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal. By order dated 13.11.2007, the O.A. was O.P.(CAT)No.180 OF 2014 : 2 :
allowed. This lead to cancellation of appointment of Sri.Ranjith Ganapathy and finally by order dated 13.5.2009, the petitioner was offered appointment and accordingly, he joined the post on 8.6.2009. Long thereafter, he made two representations in May and September, 2002 requesting that his appointment be made with effect from 12.6.2006, the date on which Sri.Ranjith Ganapathy was nominated for the post in question. When his request was not considered, he filed O.A.81/13 and that O.A. was disposed of directing consideration of his request.
4. Accordingly, his request was considered and it was rejected by Annexure A10 order dated 20.2.13. It was challenging Annexure A10 order, O.A.1088/13 was filed and which came to be dismissed by Ext.P2 order. The facts noticed above show that the petitioner is the beneficiary of O.A.499/06 filed by another two persons and when offer was made in 2009, he accepted it without any protest and joined the post on 8.6.2009. Even thereafter, he staked his claim for retrospective appointment and that too only in the representations filed in May and September 2002.
O.P.(CAT)No.180 OF 2014 : 3 :
Therefore, the petitioner is guilty not only of acquiescence but also of delay and laches. That apart, even this Original Petition is now filed challenging Ext.P2 order rendered by the Tribunal on 13.12.2013 is highly belated. It was taking note of these facts that the Tribunal rejected the O.A. and we do not see any reason to interfere with the order.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge