Honble YADAV J.–The present writ petition is posted today for disposal of the application moved under Article 226(3) of the Constitution.

(2). Instead of disposing of the stay application in light of the application moved on behalf of respondent No.1 under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties I would like to decide the pre- sent writ petition itself on merits.

(3). The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.98 (Annex.1) passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Circuit Bench Jodhpur (respondent No.2). The order impugned dated 16.1.98 (Annex.1) has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground inter alia that the appeal pre- sented before respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976) was barred by limitation. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if any appeal, application or suit is filed before a Court of law then whether the question of limitation is raised or not the Court of law is required to take notice of the question of limitation. He invited my attention towerds memo of appeal (Annex.2) wherein respondent No.1 prayed following reliefs before the Tribunal:

a) The respondents be directed to accord promotion to the appellant from the date persons junior to her were promoted, with all consequential financial benefits, fixation of pay, etc.

b) to pay salary to the appellant for the period from 7.1.94 to 24.5.94 treating it as on duty.

c) any other relief the Honble Tribunal deems fit, just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d) costs of appeal may kindly be allowed.

(4). In reply to the aforesaid argument it is strenuously urged by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that against her promotion order dated 3.12.93 respon- dent No.1 filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3472/95 which was finally disposed of on 27.9.96, directing her to approach to the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1976.

(5). In pursuance of the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition no 27.9.96 respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal and filed the appeal which is at Annex.2 to the writ petition.

(6). It is conceded by learned counsel for respondent No.1 Mr. Sawhney that the appeal filed before the Tribunal (respondent No.2) was accompanying with an application for condonation of delay. However, from perusal of the order passed by Tribunal (respondent No.2) it appears that before passing any order on the application moved for condonation of delay, the Tribunal (respondent No.2) has proceeded to decide the controversy on merits without addressing itself on the question of limitation.

(7). It is to be imbibed that the present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution whereby every High Court has been empowered to have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in rela- tion to which it exercises its jurisdiction. The object of Article 227 of the Constitution is to keep the subordinate Courts as well as tribunals within its boundaries.

(8). Here, in the present case it is borne out on the face of record that the Tribunal (respondent No.2) has proceeded to decide the appeal on merits without addressing itself on the question of limitation or before passing any order on the application moved for condonation of delay which is impermissible under Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(9). It is true that under Section 9 of the Act of 1976 no appeal is entertainable before the Tribunal after the expiry of 60 days from the date of the order of the authority but in the proviso of the aforesaid Section 9 it is envisaged that an appeal may be deemed within the prescribed period if the appellant satisfy the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. It appears that the mandatory provisions e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document