( 1 ) SINCE all the aforesaid writ petitions relate to identical questions of law and facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) ALL the petitioners submitted representations for issuing appointment letters to the post of Ticket collector, but the General Manager, Western Railway, rejected the same. Dissatisfied with the rejection orders, the petitioners filed OAs in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and the same were dismissed, both on merits as also on the point of limitation.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved with the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, all the aforesaid petitioners have craved indulgence of this Court by way of writ petitions wherein prayer has been made to quash and set-aside the orders dated 12. 8. 2003 passed in OA No. 467/2001 and 214/2002; order dated 28. 1. 2004 passed in OA No. 364/2002 and other orders dated 22. 4. 2004 passed in OA No. 355/2002; order dated 26. 4. 2004 passed in OA No. 33/2003 and order dated 7. 1. 2005 passed in OA No. 393/2001.

( 4 ) SKIPPING unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to these writ petitions , in nub, are stated thus: pursuant to the advertisement issued for the post of Commercial Clerk, Ticket Collector, Accounts clerk, Junior Clerk, which appeared in the employment notice No. 1/96 dated 17. 3. 96 (Ann. A1), the applicants submitted their applications. In these category of posts, appointments were to be given on the basis of merit-cum-preference. The respondent no. 2 issued call letters whereby the applicants were called for joint competitive examination to be held on 21. 7. 96. The applicants were declared successful in the written examination as well as interview and vide letter dated 22. 7. 97 they were informed that their applications for appointment has been sent to the General Manager (Establishment), Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai with the recommendation for appointment (Ann. A2 ). Thereafter the applicants submitted many representations for issuing appointment letters to the post of Ticket Collector, but all in vain.

( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

( 6 ) MR. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner (s) canvassed that the learned Tribunal dismissed the OAs on the ground that the period of select panel had expired on 2nd June, 1998, but the fact is that the respondents had given appointments to many candidates from the select list in the years 1999 and 2000 after the expiry of the period of select panel. Thus, the observation made by the learned Tribunal was totally misconceived. Learned counsel further canvassed that the second ground of dismissal of OAs was that the applications were filed after the period of limitation provided under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and as such the applications being not maintainable could not be admitted.

( 7 ) MR. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner (s) contended that even after the expiry of the period of panel, the appointments were made by respondent no. 3 or respondent no. 2, as the case may be, from the panel in the years 1999, 2000 and 2002. The applications were well within limitation and they ought to have been entertained by the learned Tribunal.

( 8 ) CITING a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma and Others Versus Chairman, School Service Commission reported in (2001) 4 Supreme court Cases 289, the learned counsel submitted that in this case the life of panel for general category was extended but the same was not extended in the case of panel for OBC. The Hon'ble Apex Court held the action of the respondents to be unjustified, illegal and directed them to give regular appointment from the select list. The facts of the case at hand are quite akin to the facts of the cited case. Hence, even if the application was not filed within a period of limitation, the application ought