P. B. Bajanthri, J.—In the instant L.P.A., the appellant has questioned the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1545 of 2015.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that he is aggrieved by the final gradation list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) notified by the Water Resources Department. Against the final gradation list dated 03.01.2008 C.W.J.C. No. 1545 of 2015 was presented in the year 2015. The learned Single Judge has taken note of delay and third party right has accrued, therefore, C.W.J.C. was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently, contended that delay would not be hurdle in questioning the final gradation list dated 03.01.2008. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, that his name should have reflected at Sl. No. 36 instead of Sl. No. 43. It is error committed by the author of the final gradation list dated 03.01.2008, if the same is not rectified, appellant’s service condition would be affected severely.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5.Undisputed facts are that the appellant has questioned the validity of the gradation list dated 03.01.2008 final gradation list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) dated 03.01.2008 in the year 2015. Apex Court in the case Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in A.I.R. 1974 SC 2271, wherein it is held in respect of seniority/promotion the affected person must agitate before the Court of Law within a reasonable period of six months from the date of cause of action. The same has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul and Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 7 SCC 610. Further, recently in the case of Union of India and Others vs. C. Girija and Others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 633, the Apex Court has held as under:—

“15. There is no dispute between the parties that in the Notification dated 14.10.1999 inviting applications for filling up of 05 posts under 30% LDCE quota, 04 vacancies were shown as unreserved and 01 as reserved for SC. The applicant submitted an application for participation in the selection but she could not be included against 04 unreserved vacancies, she being a general category candidate. There were certain complaints with regard to selection under 70% quota, with regard to which certain investigations were going on, which could be finalized in 2007. Applicant for the first time submitted representation to General Manager, Southern Railways on 25.09.2007 praying for inclusion of her name in the panel dated 09.01.2001. Copy of the representation filed by the applicant has been brought on the record, which indicate that applicant has in her representation relied on certain orders issued on 20.06.2007 and 05.09.2007 with regard to revision of the panel under 70% selection quota. With regard to 30% quota to be filled through LDCE, she stated that reserving 01 post for SC was totally against all norms. Representation was replied by Railways on 27.12.2007 stating that with regard to revision of the panel under 70% promotion quota, the applicant is not a party in any way. With regard to vacancy under 30% LDCE selection, it was indicated that the same was done as per the Rules prevalent at that time. O.A. No. 466 of 2009 was filed thereafter by the applicant, which has been decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 560 days in filing the O.A. The applicant has challenged the communication dated 27.12.2007 of the Railways which was given in reply to the representation of the applicant. The condonation of delay, thus, only meant that against the letter dated 27.12.2007, her O.A. was held to be within time. The Tribunal and High Court have not adverted to the delay, which accrued from the declaration of panel on 09.01.2001 and submitting her representation on 25.09.2007, i.e. after more than 06 years and 09 months.

16. This Court had occasion to consider the question of cause of action in reference to grievances pertaining to service matters. This C