AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)
The facts of the matter is that the respondents issued advertisement dated 30.05.1996 inviting application for engagement of 737 casual labourers on daily rate basis for a period of 119 days in Civil Engineering Department of Railway, i.e. for Waltair Div.-67, Vizianagaram Div.-100, Srikakula Div.-200, Rayagada Div.-100, Araku Div.-100, Koraplut Div.-70, Jagadlpur Div.-30 and Kirandul Div.-70. According to the applicants (Nineteen in number), they had submitted application for engagement in Rayagada Division and it is alleged that since the respondents did not engage them, they had sought information under RTI Act and submitted representation on 17.02.2017 for consideration of their cases. Alleging non-consideration, they have filed this O.A. along with M.A. No. 438/2018 seeking permission to prosecute this case jointly and MA No. 439/2018 seeking condonation of delay. The prayer of the applicant in this O.A. is as under:
“a) Let the Respondent No.1 be directed to consider representation dtd. 17.02.2017 of the applicants vide Annexure-2 within a stipulated period.
b) Let the Respondents be directed to give appointment to the applicants as per selection list on the basis of advertisement dtd. 30.05.96 within a stipulated period by giving age relaxation.
c) Let it be declared that the selection made by the respondents on 21.09.09 is illegal arbitrary and the same is contrary to advertisement dtd. 30.05.96 and also order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5053/03.”
In the MA No. 439/2018 filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay it has been stated that they had applied for consideration and remained silent with a hope that the authorities will issue appointment order in time since everything had been completed. Similarly situated persons filed W.P(C) No. 5053/2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. After coming to know the developments, suspecting the conduct of the respondents, they submitted representations on 10.02.2017 and 17.02.2017 and applied for information under RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter, they approached this Tribunal in the instant O.A. Accordingly, they have prayed to condone the delay.
As per the provision, at the first instant, notices were issued to the respondents to file their reply to both the M.As. The respondents filed objection stating therein that similarly situated candidates approached before this Tribunal in O.A. NO. 1067-1085 of 2002, which was disposed of on 26.12.2002. The respondents department challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 5053/ 2003, which was dismissed on 24.09.2008 as against which respondents approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No. 8279/2009. Thereafter, in compliance of the orders, committee constituted for the purpose of selection recommended names of eighty candidates for engagement of casual labourers under AEN/RGDA by strictly observing the principle of reservation for UR/OBC/SC & ST. The applicants filed O.A. No. 406/2009 before this Tribunal for consideration of their engagement as they were shortlisted in physical test held for engagement under Rayagada Sub Unit, which was disposed of on 02.09.2009 with direction to dispose of the representation. In compliance thereto, the representations so submitted by the applicant dated 12.09.2009 was duly considered and rejected vide letter dated 09.11.2009 (R/4) and 24.11.2009 (R/5). It has also been stated that in the physical test 7 applicants, whose names appeared at Sl. No. 4, 5 and 13 to 17 of this O.A., did not appear the selection test and the remaining 10 candidates, who had appeared in the test held on 09.07.1996 and 21.07.1996 for engagement in Rayagada Sub Division did not come out successful. The respondents have also placed reliance on the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 272/2017 filed by similarly situated persons for the same selection, which was rejected by this Tribunal by observing as under:
“In the case of this nature, limitation runs six months soon after filing of the representation and such a matter cannot be adjudicated 08 years after the first O.A. The applicant has annexed the order of Hon’ble High Court passed in W.P(C) 5053/2003 disposed of on 24.09l.2008. but the applicants cannot be permitted to take mileage out of the said decision at this distance of time. The claim of the applicants is hopelessly barred by limitation and has become a stale claim and cannot be adjudicated at this distance of time, hence M.A. 685/16 to condone the delay in filing the O.A. is rejected.”
The applicants filed rejoinder to the objection filed by the respondents in MA for condonation of delay stating inter alia that after coming to know illegality in the matter of selection, they have sought information under RTI Act, 2005, but the respondents intentionally did not supply the information and, on the other hand, to deny the just claim of the applicants, they are opposing their cases on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, the delay may be condoned and the matter may be heard on merit.
In course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicants by reiterating the stands taken in the pleadings has submitted that delay should not defeat justice and since injustice was caused to the applicants delay needs to be condoned.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents has vociferously opposed to the very contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants that there was illegality in the matter of selection and has submitted that if there was any illegality, the applicants should have challenged such selection by making the selected candidates as parties in the O.A., which is not the present case. Further, it has been contended that the allegation raised by the applicants are their apprehension there being no iota of truth of the same. Since, the applicants at Sl. Nos. 4, 5 and 13 to 17 of this O.A. did not appear at the test, they do not have any locus standi to maintain this O.A. Hence, while praying for dismissal of the MA filed for condonation of delay, respondents’ counsel has also prayed for the dismissal of the MA for joint prosecution so also the OA.
Considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record.
It is seen that some of the similarly situated persons had approached this Tribunal in O.A. 272/2017 seeking direction to the respondents to consider their cases for engagement pursuant to the notification dated 30.06.1996 keeping in mind the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa dated 24.09.2008 in WP(C) No. 5053/2003. This Tribunal taking into consideration the matters in its entirety vide order dated 15.12.2017 dismissed the M.A. filed by those applicants for condonation of delay and the O.A. for being hopelessly barred by limitation. It is not the case of the applicants that the aforesaid orders has been reviewed or set aside in higher forum. The applicants have also did not controvert the fact that applicants at Sl. Nos. 4, 5 and 13 to 17 of this O.A. had not appeared at the test and, therefore, they do not have any locus standi to maintain this O.A. so also they have not produced any piece of evidence to substantiate any illegality in the matter of selection. Law is well settled that however suspicion grave may be that cannot be accepted unless the allegation is proved to the hilt. Hence, this Tribunal did not find any substantive ground to differ with the view already taken by this Tribunal in OA No. 272/2017 insofar as delay is concerned. It is also noteworthy that a settled should not be unsettled after a long lapse of time is the law of the land.
In view of the discussions made above, this Tribunal do not find any ground to condone the delay sought by the applicant in the M.A. No. 439/2018. Hence, M.A. 439/2018 stands dismissed and, as a consequence, MA 438/2018 so also the present O.A. fails and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.