(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. Both the petitions are preferred from common order dated 19.12.2011 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Miscellaneous Application No.158 of 2011 in Original Application No.163 of 2011 and Miscellaneous Application No.162 of 2011 in Original Application No.169 of 2011, whereby the applications for condoning delay of two years and three months were rejected. The reasons advanced by the petitioners to explain and justify the delay were to the effect that the petitioners did not have the knowledge about declaration of result by Railway Recruitment Board, Ahmedabad, on 8.3.2008 and they came to know about the factum of judgment of the tribunal in favour of similarly situated candidates when those candidates reported for training and duty. The respondents relied upon the contention that it was impossible that the petitioners would have remained unaware of publication of final selection list which was published on the internet on 8.3.2008. After elaborate consideration of rival pleas, the tribunal has recorded its findings to the effect that sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay was not made out, as the petitioners were not vigilant or rather very dormant and appeared to have chosen to sit on the fence till the cases of other candidates were decided in their favour. The factual assertions of the petitioners did not inspire confidence and the reasons cited by the petitioners were found to be an afterthought. It was also considered that selection by direct recruitment to the post of Supervisor (P-way) were cancelled and was no more a source of recruitment due to which, presumably, even if the delay were condoned, main case of the petitioners could not have been favourably considered.
2. Learned counsel, Mr.M.S.Rao, appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that three judgments of the Supreme Court and one judgment of this Court cited before the tribunal were not duly considered, and meritorious case of the petitioners could not have been thrown out on the technical ground of bar of limitation. Learned counsel reiterated the observations made in the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by him.
3. It was, however, seen from the impugned order and record that the tribunal has relied upon pertinent observations made in two judgments of the Supreme Court which were directly applicable in the facts of the case. As observed in State of Karnataka and Others v. S.M. Kotrayya and Others [(1996) 6 SCC 267], an explanation has to be given for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the period of limitation and the tribunal has to satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper. Only to say that the applicants came to know of the relief granted by the tribunal very late and thereafter the petition was filed immediately was clearly held to be not proper explanation at all. It is also observed in M/s. Rup Diamonds and Others v. UOI and Others [AIR 1989 SC 674] that those who were sitting on the fence till somebody else took up the matter to the Court cannot be given benefit as such petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and had chosen to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. The importance of approaching the tribunal in time and prescription of a fixed period of limitation assumes greater importance in the cases like the present one wherein entertainment of applications after several years may not serve any useful purpose on account of the recruitment policy having been altered in the meantime. Thus, as this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the view taken therein, the petitions are summarily dismissed.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (Mohinder Pal, J.) *malek Top