Pawan Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission And Ors

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

This R.A. is filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of order dated 25.05.2018 in O.A. No.1460/2018. The review applicant, who was original applicant in the ibid O.A., had prayed for the following reliefs in the O.A.:

"a. In the light of the order dt. 19.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.9019- 9021 of 2015 (Civil) Appeals No.2836-2838 of 2017) and failure to reply to the representation dated 24.03.2018, set aside the Show Cause Notice dt. 27.05.2013, being illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

b. direct the Respondents to offer appointment to the Applicant on the appropriate post pursuant to his merit alongwith all ancillary benefits and allowances, with retrospective effect from the date of appointment of his counterparts;

c. remove the name of Applicant from the list of withheld candidates and declare the Applicant herein appointed in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012."

The O.A. was dismissed on the ground of limitation; the operative part of which reads as under:-

"5. In the conspectus, we are of the view that the applicant's request to remove his name from the list of withheld candidates and declare him appointed in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012, cannot be considered at this late stage. The applicant has not satisfactorily explained the delay involved. Hence, we dismiss this OA at the admission stage itself on the ground of limitation."

In support of his prayer for reviewing the order dated 25.05.2018, the review applicant has pleaded the following grounds:

3.1 There is an apparent error on the face of record, as the Tribunal in paragraph 4 under review has recorded "The applicant has not placed on record any document to prove that he indeed had replied to the Annexure A-2 SCN dated 27.05.2013 albeit he has stated as such in his Annexure A-1 representation to the SCN". The Tribunal failed to notice that reply dated 10.06.2013 to the show cause notice (SCN) dated 27.05.2013 was annexed as Annexure A-3 with the O.A. The respondents have not acted on the reply of the applicant to the SCN.

3.2 Since no final decision has been taken by the respondents in pursuance of the SCN dated 27.05.2013, there is running cause of action to the applicant. Hence, the O.A. could not have been declared to be suffering with limitation of time.

3.3 There were SLP Nos.9019-21/2015 pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Staff Selection Commission v. Sudesh, which were decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court only on 19.07.2017 and the Review Petition filed against it was dismissed on 31.10.2017. Hence, the respondents came under obligation to give benefit of the judgment in Sudesh (supra) to the applicant, but they have failed to take decision on the SCN dated 27.05.2013 issued to the applicant. Thus, the O.A. cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3.4 There were several cases of similar nature arising out of the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, who came up for consideration of various Benches of this Tribunal and in all those cases, the respondent - SSC has consented that it would take decision in those cases after the outcome of the pending SLPs before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicant's case is also of the same nature.

3.5 As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sub Inspector Rooplal & another v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & others, (2000) 1 SCC 644, a Bench of the Tribunal is bound by the view taken by the coordinate Bench, and if it takes a different view, then the matter need to be referred to a Larger Bench.

3.6 The prayer of the applicant for review is also supported by the following judgments:-

i) Judgment of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2014 in O.A. No.930/2014, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court.

ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 06.12.2017 in W.P. (C) No.10824/2017 (Amit Chhikara v. Union of India & others).

iii) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. & others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & others (Civil Appeal No.9849/2014) decided on 17.10.2014.

We have gone through the contents of the R.A. as well as the documents placed on record.

By going through the contents of the R.A. and the grounds pleaded therein, one would get an impression as though the review applicant in the garb of this R.A. has tried to re-argue the case, which is not permissible under law. The Tribunal has given a firm and unequivocal ruling that the O.A. had suffered from limitation of time and accordingly had dismissed it vide order dated 25.05.2018. The applicant has not been able to explain the delay involved in approaching the Tribunal in O.A. No.1460/2018, which was filed on 10.04.2018. The Tribunal, in paragraph (4) of the order under review, has clearly recorded that the applicant has not placed any document on record to show that his reply dated 10.06.2013 to the SCN dated 27. 05.2013 has indeed been received by the respondents. In this R.A. also, the averment has been made to the effect that the applicant submitted his reply to the SCN on 10.06.2013, which was followed by subsequent representations. It is settled law that repeated representations do not overcome the limitation, as noted by the Tribunal in the order under review. The applicant became conscious of his claim only after he came to know of the dismissal of SLP Nos.9019-21/2015 by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

We are not at all convinced with the averments made in this R.A. regarding the delay involved in filing O.A. No.1460/2018 on 10.04.2018 for a cause that had occurred on 27.05.2013 by issuance of the SCN by the respondent-SSC. As such, we do not find any merit in this R.A.

Accordingly, this R.A. is dismissed in circulation.