JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.061/00040/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal though admitted that the O.A. has merit but dismissed the same on the ground of being barred by law of limitation.

2. The facts-in-brief are that petitioner-Naresh Kumar (general category) and respondent No.4-Vivek Kumar (OBC category) appeared for direct recruitment to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. On being successful, petitioner was placed at Sr. No.3 of the panel, whereas respondent No.4 was placed at Sr. No.21. Petitioner joined his duties on 16.03.2005, whereas respondent No.4 joined on 14.03.2005. As per seniority list issued on 01.01.2008, petitioner was at Sr. No.4, whereas respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.9.

3. Thereafter, seniority list of Draughtsman Grade-II was issued in August, 2010, but the name of petitioner was not there. He represented on 04.10.2010. Accordingly, another seniority list was issued on 23.01.2012, in which petitioner was shown at Sr. No.307, whereas respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.285, i.e., respondent No.4 was placed over and above the petitioner in the seniority list though respondent No.4 was having less merit than the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 19.03.2012, it was followed by another representation on 08.05.2015 and reminders also. Thereafter, the respondents issued another seniority list on 19.10.2015 in which the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.287-B, but again he was placed below respondent No.4 on the basis of his date of joining the service, as petitioner joined his duties on 16.03.2005, whereas respondent No.4 joined on 14.03.2005. Thereafter, on the basis of seniority, respondent No.4 was promoted as Technical Officer vide order dated 06.11.2015. Thereafter, another seniority list was issued on 02.02.2016, but the petitioner was again shown junior to respondent No.4.

4. Ultimately, the petitioner filed O.A. No.061/00040/2016 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.2018 though admitted that the O.A. has merit but dismissed the same on the ground of being barred by law of limitation. Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 argued that the learned Tribunal in its earlier cases had not given any finding that the seniority was to be fixed on the basis of position of the panel. He further argued that the O.A. before the learned Tribunal was barred by the law of limitation.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the file at length.

7. The present petition was filed on 28.02.2019. Notice was directed to be issued to the respondents on 29.03.2019. Thereafter, the Registry reported on 11.03.2020 that the petitioner had taken steps for the service of respondent No.4. However, the notice issued by the Registry to respondent No.4 was not received back either served or unserved. This Court again vide order dated 03.03.2020 directed to issue fresh notice for service of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the Registry reported that the notice issued to respondent No.4 under registered cover on 16.12.2020 had not been received back either served or unserved. However, when despite service respondent No.4 did not appear, he was set exparte by the Court on 20.07.2022. On the said date the petition was also admitted to hearing. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appeared for respondents 1 to 3, and post admission notice was directed to be issued to respondent No.4.

8. Thereafter, the Registry reported on 27.07.2022 that fresh particulars along with registered cover were filed by the learned counsel for petitioner in the Registry for service of respondent No.4. Accordingly, Registry issued notice to respondent No.4 on 29.07.2022; however, even thereafter none appeared on behalf of respondent No.4.

9. Ultimately, this Court vide order dated 11.0