A challenge to seniority must be timely, and failure to pursue issues barred further claims; eligibility challenges under the Administrative Tribunals Act must adhere to specified limitation periods.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.05.2018 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'], whereby the Original Application being O.A. No.1614/2016 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. In the said O.A., the Petitioner had sought, inter alia, the following reliefs:

i. Quashing of the final seniority list of Divisional Officers (Fire) dated 17.02.2016; and

ii. Setting aside of the appointment orders of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 appointing them as Divisional Officers (Fire) through direct recruitment.

3. The principal issues which arise for consideration in the present Petition are whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the inter se seniority list dated 17.02.2016 prepared in respect of the cadre of Divisional Officers (Fire) in Delhi Fire Service; and whether the Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error in declining to interfere with the appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that they allegedly did not fulfil the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

5. The Petitioner commenced his service in the Delhi Fire Service [hereinafter referred to as 'DFS'] as a Sub-Officer w.e.f. 16.02.1991. Subsequently, he was directly appointed as Station Officer on 01.01.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Officer ['ADO'] w.e.f. 23.10.2006, and eventually elevated to the post of Divisional Officer (Fire) w.e.f. 29.07.2013.

6. Respondent No.5 joined DFS as a Sub-Officer in May 1993 whereas Respondent No.6 joined DFS as a Sub-Officer in December 1993. They were appointed as Station Officers on 11.01.2002, and then subsequently promoted as ADOs on 25.03.2013. Thereafter, they were appointed directly through the Union Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as 'UPSC'] as Divisional Officer (Fire) on 02.09.2013.

7. Initially, a tentative seniority list of Divisional Officers was circulated on 26.11.2015, wherein the Petitioner was shown senior to Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Subsequently, the final seniority list was issued on 17.02.2016, in which the Petitioner was placed below Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The Petitioner submitted a representation challenging the same, which was not considered. Consequently, he filed O.A. No.1614/2016 before the Tribunal on 05.05.2016, seeking to quash both the seniority list and the appointments of Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

8. The Respondents contended, before the Tribunal, that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were directly recruited against the vacancies pertaining to recruitment year 2012-2013, and that the seniority had been fixed strictly in accordance with the Department of Personnel & Training ['DoPT'] Office Memorandum ['OM'] dated 04.03.2014, which lays down the method for determination of inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits.

9. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings, submissions, and material on record, dismissed the O.A. filed by the Petitioner vide Impugned Order holding:

(i) the appointments of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and ma