M. Anand Kumar Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India Through Secretary & 1 (S)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.M SAHAI)

1. We have heard Mr. Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. The Tribunal has rejected O.A No. 336 of 2007 by its judgment dated 14.07.2010 and in para 16 it has held as under:-

“16. The applicant has relied upon two judgments which are in no way helpful to him. These cases can be distinguished on facts and also on law. For promotion to ITO Group ‘B’ their seniority in feeder cadre in Gujarat Circle have been considered by DPC while preparing the panel for promotion.”

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the seniority list of 1999 in the year 2006. The petitioner has not impleaded the persons from whom he was claiming seniority as party to the O.A However, the law is well settled that after allowing delay, the seniority cannot be challenged. With regard to impleadment of the parties, the Tribunal has considered the case law of this Court in paragraph nos. 14 and 15. So far as challenge to seniority is concerned, it has been challenged on the ground of delay. The Tribunal has considered the decision of this Court in para 17 which reads as under:-

“17. In another case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 1 SLJ 312 (SC) it held as follows:-

“Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once seniority list has been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R Mudgal, 1987 (1) SLJ 221 (SC), this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.”

3. With the aforesaid reason, we find that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A filed by the petitioner. In spite of time having allowed to the petitioner on 21.06.2011 and 05.07.2011, the petitioner has not impleaded the persons from which he was claiming seniority.

4. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.