Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND
Manoj Kumar, son of Late Raghaw Sharan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 15.01.2024, whereby and whereunder, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi has dismissed the O.A. No. 051/00842/2023 filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
Factual Matrix:
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Station Master on 01.08.1998 at Bhav Nagar Division (BVP), Western Railway and was transferred to Silli, South Eastern Railway as an Asst. Station Master in the year 2003.
Respondent No.4, on 19.07.2007, had issued notification inviting option for the post of Traffic Apprentice in the scale of 5500-9000/- against 10% quota through LDCE from all Group ‘C’ Staff of Operating Department (other than Ministerial Staff). Applicant had applied for the post, participated in the LDCE and cleared the examination. Result was published on 09.02.2009 and the Chief D.T.I., Ranchi was directed by respondent No.4 to release applicant for joining as Traffic Apprentice w.e.f. 11.04.2
The failure to file a delay condonation application renders an original application before the Tribunal non-maintainable, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions.
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.
The lack of jurisdiction of a tribunal is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage, and any decision made by a tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity.
The interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in the context of delay condonation applications should be liberal, focusing on the reasons for the delay rather than the duration alone, provided there is no....
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of apparent error and does not extend to reinstating employment post-candidature cancellation due to delays.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of service matters covered by the Act of 1985....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
