M.M KUMAR, J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 18.9.2009 (P-8) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) holding that the cause of action to the petitioner had arisen on the declaration of the result of selection on 22.5.2006 when the petitioner was declared as not selected. The original application filed by the petitioner on 17.2.2009 after about two years and nine months, was hopelessly time barred. The explanation furnished by the petitioner was also considered in terms of Section 21 (1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act and was not found plausible. According to the explanation tendered, the petitioner applied for information under the Right to Information Act, which was furnished to him on 2.11.2006 He again sought information which was furnished to him on 10.7.2007 and 14.7.2008 Thereafter, he served legal notice on 25.11.2008 and, thereafter filed the original application before the Tribunal on 17.2.2009 The explanation has been rejected on the ground that the pleas raised in support of the original application were available to the petitioner when the cause of action had arisen to him on account of his non-selection.
The Tribunal has also rejected the claim made by the petitioner on merits. The argument of the petitioner that the first Board had adopted stringent criteria in granting marks at the time of interview as compared to the second Board has been found to be false after recording findings that the maximum marks granted by the first Board were 21, whereas the maximum marks awarded by the second Board were 20. The petitioner has obtained 14 marks in the interview and had secured 32 marks in the written test. The last selected candidate had secured 55 marks. Finding no irregularity, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that no case was made out even on merits.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal warranting admission of the instant petition.
The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M KUMAR) JUDGE
07.01.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
mk JUDGE