IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in challenging seniority list should not be condoned as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other individuals.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 18992/2024 -Ex

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4624/2024

3. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative (the Tribunal) in M.A. No. 3265/2023 in O.A. No. 2808/2023.

4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay of 2230 days in filing the O.A. and has consequently dismissed the OA being barred by time. While declining to condone the delay, the learned Tribunal noted the fact that the petitioner was well aware of his seniority position in 2013 itself. Furthermore, a seniority list of Assistant Managers on which post the petitioner was then working, was duly circulated in the year 2015; it is based on this seniority list that the petitioner was promoted as Manager in 2018, but he still chose to approach the Tribunal only in 2023. The learned Tribunal, therefore, held that there was no ground to condone this inordinate delay and unsettle the settled seniority position qua other employees as prayed for by the petitioner.

5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the submissions made before the learned Tribunal. She submits that the impugned order is perverse as the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's original application without appreciating that while granting the petitioner additional time to join service as an Assistant Manager, he was never informed that his seniority will be affected due to the delay on his part in joining service. She contends that this was a fit case where the learned Tribunal ought to have condone the delay and examine the matter on merits. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the O.A. be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a decision on merits.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, we find that the petitioner had without furnishing any justifiable reasons, approached the learned Tribunal in 2023 to assail a seniority list of Assistant Managers, which stood finalized in 2015 itself. Even before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has simply urged that the petitioner's claim ought to have been examined on merits without furnishing any reason whatsoever for the delay of about 8 years in approaching the learned Tribunal. As rightly held by the learned Tribunal, based on this seniority list circulated in 2015, which the petitioner now seeks to assail, he was promoted as a Manager in 2018, which promotion he duly accepted without any demur. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner was always aware of his position in the seniority list and despite opportunity, failed to challenge the same when it was circulated. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot, at this stage, be permitted to urge that having topped in the recruitment examination, he ought to have been placed at number one position in the seniority list of Assistant Managers. Entertaining the petitioner's claim at this belated stage would affect the seniority of various other employees and in our view cannot be permitted especially when not only the petitioner himself but even the other affected employees stand promoted as Manager.

7. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa, (2010)12 SCC 471, wherein the Court considered the effect of delay in challenging the seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should not be entertained as it seeks to disturb the vested rights that have accrued to the other persons in the intervening period. The relevant observations of the Apex Court as contained in paras 18, 21 and 29 read as under:

"18. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long- stand