The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in challenging administrative decisions, such as seniority and promotion, can bar an application under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. Prakash Singh in this writ petition assails the order dated 11th September, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short), whereby OA No.2719/2014 stands dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Administrative Officer (SAO), Grade-II in the Department of Defence Research and Development, Ministry of Defence (DRDO for short) on 30th April, 2004. His seniority viz. promotee officers, was fixed with reference to his date of joining as SAO, Grade-II in the seniority list published by the DRDO on 1st June, 2004. The petitioner did not object to the seniority as fixed predicated on his date of joining. In 2007, those senior to the petitioner as per the seniority list dated 1st June 2004 were promoted to the post of SAO, Grade-I.

3. On 19th September, 2013, the petitioner made a representation for correction of his seniority and claimed consequential relief by way of promotion to SAO, Grade-I with effect from 1st January, 2007. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.R. Parmar & Others, (2012) 13 SCC 340. By letter dated 20th January, 2014 the petitioner was informed, inter-alia, that the matter regarding re-fixation of seniority and consequent promotion had been referred to the Department of Personnel and Training for their advice, which was awaited. The petitioner thereupon filed OA No.570/2014, which was disposed of on 17th February, 2014 with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 19th March, 2013, relying on the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra), by a reasoned and speaking order.

4. By order dated 29th April, 2014, which reads as under, the representation of the petitioner was rejected recording the following:-

“WHEREAS Shri Prakash Singh has submitted a representation dated 19.09.2013 for re-fixation of his seniority in the grade of SAO-II vis-a-vis promote officers and conducting of review DPC for his promotion to the higher grade of SAO-I. He has cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 27.11.2012 in UOI vs. NR Parmar & Ors case, wherein it is adjudicated that the direct recruits have to be interspaced with promotes of the same recruitment year.

AND WHEREAS Shri Prakash Singh was appointed as SAO-II on 30.04.2004 as direct recruit through UPSC. 04 vacancies of SAO-II were notified to the UPSC for filling up by direct recruitment. These vacancies were advertised by USPC in Mar 2001. The UPSC held a recruitment test on 17.03.2002 for the purpose of screening the candidates to be called for interview. The interviews were held in Sept 2002 at UPSC. A list of 04 candidates was recommended by the UPSC in Oct 2002 for appointment as SAO-II. Shri Prakash Singh was not amongst the 04 recommended candidates. Out of the 04 candidates 02 candidates belonging to OBC were also recommended for appointment to the post of SAO-I and they joined as SAO-I. UPSC was then requested to forward candidates from the reserved panel for appointment as SAO-II in Nov 2003. The name of Shri Prakash Singh (OBC) was forwarded by UPSC in Jan 2004. Shri Prakash Singh was offered appointment and he joined in DRDO as SAO-II on 30.04.2004. He was given seniority in the grade w.e.f. 30.04.2004.

AND WHEREAS para 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of DOP&T OM dated 03.07.86 on consolidated instructions on seniority contains the following provisions:-

2.4.1 The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotes shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotes, which shall be based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruit and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules.

2.4.2 If adequate number of direct recruits does not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available recruits and the