Rajendra Kumar vs Union of India and Others

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal), whereby Original Application No. 128/2005, filed by petitioner, has been dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that applicant was selected on the post of E.S.M. Grade-III, in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/96, after passing written test and interview and his name finds place at S. No. 47 in the select list. Appointment letter was sent to him, but he did not report. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent to him, but he failed to report. It appears that thereafter the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondents, firstly in the year 1998 to the effect that he was selected on the post of E.S.M. Grade-III but he has not received the appointment order, therefore, the same be supplied to him and he may be allowed to join on his post. The respondents, vide letter dated 18.09.1998, informed the applicant that his appointment order was sent at the address, furnished by him and thereafter, a reminder was also sent, but he has not reported, therefore, it is not possible to allow the applicant to join the post now. It was also informed that term of panel was only one year, which has also been expired. The petitioner, thereafter again gave a representation to the respondents and again an enquiry was made in the matter and ultimately, the representation of petitioner was rejected in 2004. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Original Application in the year 2005, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order impugned dated 18.02.2009, on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was duly selected and appointment order was also issued in favour of petitioner, but the same was not served upon him, therefore, he could not join the post. He submitted that petitioner was not at fault in joining the post, therefore, it was a duty of the respondents to allow him to join the post, when he made a request to the respondents in the year 1998. So far as rejection of request of petitioner in the year 1998 by the respondents is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner again made a representation and an enquiry was made by the respondents, which is clear from the correspondence placed on record, therefore, he approached the Court in time, his representation was rejected in 2004, he filed Original Application, immediately in the year 2005, therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality in rejecting his Original Application on the ground of delay.

So far as merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, therefore, even if period of panel of one year has expired, the respondents are duty bound to allow the petitioner to join the post, in pursuance of the selections made in the year 1996.

Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that vacancy relates to the year 1996 and selection list was prepared way back on 26.10.1996. He submitted that although the petitioner was selected on the post of E.S.M. Grade-III, but he did not join the post, despite appointment letter issued to him. He further submitted that reminder was also issued to the petitioner to join the post, but he failed to do so. He also submitted that petitioner did not approach the respondents in the year 1996 or 1997 and only in the year 1998, he approached the respondents by way of representation, which was replied to him way back on 18.09.1998.

So far as second and subsequent representations are concerned, learned counsel for respondents submitted that mere filing of subsequent representation and rejection thereof, cannot extend the period of limitation, therefore, the Tribunal was absolutely right in dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner on the ground of delay. So far as merits of the case are concerned, he submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly relied upon two judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in the cases of Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others Vs. Union of India and others, and P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another, , wherein it was held that period of panel cannot be extended by the Courts.

Learned counsel for respondents also referred the relevant rules, wherein it is provided that panel remain in force only for a period of one year. He also submitted that appointment letter and reminder thereof, were sent through registered post and the Postal Receipts were placed on record along with the reply to Original Application before the Tribunal. So far as acknowledgment is concerned, the same could not be placed on record for the reason that Postal Authority refused to supply the same on the ground that they do not keep the record, after expiry of six months. The petitioner submitted the representation in the year 1998, much after expiry of period of panel i.e. one year, therefore, the same was not supplied by the Postal Authority and as such, the same could not be placed on record. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

So far as facts of the case are concerned, there is no dispute that vacancy relates to the year 1996; final select list was prepared on 26.10.1996; petitioner was selected and appointment letter was issued to him; when he did not join the post, then a reminder letter was also issued to him through registered post; petitioner approached the respondents first time in the year 1998 with the averments that he has not received the appointment order, therefore, he may be allowed to join the post. The petitioner was informed about non-joining of post by him, in pursuance of the appointment order, vide letter dated 18.09.1998, but no steps were taken by the petitioner, immediately by way of filing Original Application in the year 1998 itself. Petitioner, instead of filing Original Application before the Tribunal, preferred another representation before the respondents, which remained pending and the same was ultimately rejected in the year 2004. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Original Application in the year 2005,

It is settled law that mere filing of repeated representation and rejection thereof subsequently, cannot extend the period of limitation. Although, the petitioner was informed way back in 1998, but instead of approaching the Tribunal for his grievance, he made a representation again before the respondents, therefore, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal was absolutely right in dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner on the ground of delay also.

So far as merits of the case are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that life of select list was only one year, which expired in the year 1997; representation was filed by the petitioner in 1998; Original Application was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005. Now we are in 2013. The vacancy relates to the year 1996 and now a period of about 17 years has already expired. The petitioner approached the respondents by way of representation after expiry of one year and as per rule, period of select list also expired, soon after expiry of one year.

In these circumstances, we find that the learned Tribunal was absolutely right in dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner on merits also.

It is relevant to mention that this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as an Appellate Court and is only required to see the jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of record in the order passed by the Tribunal. We do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 1975 1297 (SC) held the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It''s function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, held as under:

The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

In these circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.