Judgment

S.C. AGRAWAL, J.

(1) AS per the office report, there is delay of 709 days in the filing of the special leave petition against the judgment and order dated September 19, 1988, passed by the central Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad bench, hereinafter referred to as the tribunal, in Review Petition No. 39 of 1987. An application (I.A. No. 1 of 1989 has been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit filed by the petitioner. On 23/04/1990, the matter was adjourned and the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit from the learned counsel who had appeared for her in the tribunal on the question whether tribunals order was communicated to him and if so, when and if not communicated whether he had applied for grant of certified copy and if so, when and further, when the copy was delivered to him. The petitioner filed her own affidavit dated 30/08/1990 staling that her counsel had, despite her request, declined to file the affidavit but had given certain information with regard to the points, mentioned in the order dated 23/04/1990. After considering the material on record and hearing the petitioner, the delay was condoned ex parte on 5/11/1990 and notice was issued in the special leave petition. Respondent 3 filed a counter and raised objection to the condonation of delay ex parte. On 23/09/1991, the following order came to be made by a bench of this court:

"DELAY was condoned ex parte by the order dated 5/11/1990 without notice to the respondent. It appears that proviso to Rule 10(1 of Order XVI of the Rules of this court was not brought to the notice of the bench. The condonation is being opposed by respondent 3. In these circumstances it is directed that the matter may be placed before a bench presided over by Honble Mr Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah for considering the question of condonation."

The petition for condonation of delay thereafter came up for consideration and the said petition has been considered by us afresh.

(2) RESPONDENT 3 opposed the condonation of delay and relied upon the objections filed in that behalf. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and considering the entire material on record and the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the delay in the filing of the special leave petition was not wanton. We are satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner as regards the cause of the delay, as projected in the affidavit and elaborated at the time of hearing. We, accordingly, allow I.A. No. 1 of 1989 and condone the delay in the filing of the special leave petition.

(3) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we hereby grant special leave to appeal against the order dated 19/09/1988, passed by the tribunal, in Review Petition No. 39 of 1987 and proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(4) THIS appeal relates to promotion to Class III post of office clerk from the post of Lascar, a Class IV post in the railway establishment. Promotion from Class IV to Class III posts is governed by para 110 of the Railway Establishment Manual. Prior to 1/09/1982, Lascars were not eligible for such promotion but by order dated 16/10/1982 they were made eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Clerks with effect from September 1, 1982. Such promotion is made on the basis of a written test followed by viva voce for assessing suitability and candidates who obtain the qualifying percentage of marks in the written and oral tests are placed in the panel in the order of their seniority.

(5) THE appellant was recruited for the post of Lascar with effect from 27/02/1980, and was attached to the Office of the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Traction Distribution, Vijayawada in South central Railway, On 30/07/1982 a notification was issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, South central Railway, Vijaywada Division, Vijayawada for filling up 19 vacancies for the post of Junior Clerks (Class II