The main legal point established in the judgment is that applications challenging administrative decisions must be filed within the prescribed limitation period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the failure to file an application for condonation of delay may result in the dismissal of the application on the ground of limitation.

S.P.KURDUKAR, J. :- These two civil appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment since they are filed against the 4 common order dated 6th August, 1996 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 631 of 1994. Civil Appeal No. 3119 of 1997 is filed by Ramesh Chand Sharma who has been promoted to the selection post as Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class-11 (Gazetted) on being recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Civil Appeal No. 3120 of 1997 is filed by the State! of Himachal Pradesh. I

2. Feeder cadre to the selection post is Translator - cum - Legal Assistant. Under the relevant rules called " Recruitment and Promotion Rules" framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh prescribed the condition precedent of at least three years experience in a feeder cadre i.e. Translator-cum-Legislative Assistant or Proof Reader. The Government of Himachal Pradesh accepted the recommendation of the DPC and promoted Ramesh Chand Sharma, the appellant as Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class-II (Gazetted). Although, he was junior to I respondent No. 1 Udham Singh Kamal in service under the following circumstances :- It is unnecessary to set out various contentions raised in these appeals since the main question raised before us relates to limitation provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The first respondent filed O.A. in the Tribunal after expiry of three years I challenging the order of promotion of Ramesh Chand Sharma issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 22nd April, 1991. Suffice it to state that first respondent-Udham Singh Kamal was serving in the Air Force and after his retirement from the said service, he came to be appointed as Translator-cum-Legal Assistant in October, 1989 and joined on 5th of October, 1989. It is common premise that his past service in the Air Force was reckoned and accordingly he was placed senior to appellant Ramesh Chand Sharma. A vacancy arose in the promotional post [Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class-II (Gazetted)]. This vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Tribe but as a candidate from that category was not available, it was declared a general vacancy. Admittedly, Udham Singh Kamal on the date of vacancy had not put in three years experience in the feeder cadre Translator-cum-Legislative Assistant or Proof Reader. This condition was prescribed under the Rules framed by Himachal Pradesh Government in exercise of powers under Article 309 if the Constitution of India. The DPC which held its meeting on 16th February, 1991 on perusal of the service record of Ramesh Chand Sharma and Udham Singh Kamal found that the later did not fulfil the condition of three years experience in the feeder cadre and, therefore, vide its letter dated 22nd April, 1991 selected and recommended Ramesh Chand Sharma for being appointed as Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class-II (Gazetted).

3. The first respondent-Udham Singh Kamal on 1st May, 1991 submitted his representation to the Deputy Secretary (SAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh which came to be rejected on 2nd July, 1991 by the Government on the ground that since he did not possess three years experience, he is not eligible. In the meantime, vide notification dated April 22, 1991 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Department of Personnel), Ramesh Chand Sharma was appointed as an Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class - II (Gazetted) in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat.

4. The respondent No. 1 Udham Singh Kamal on 2nd June, 1994 filed original Application (O.A.) before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. This O.A. was admittedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years as provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As regards the limitation in paragraph 5, the first respondent has stated as under :- The applicant further declares that the appl