O R D E R(Oral)

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. This OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The brief facts leading to filing of this OA are that the applicant initially joined service as a Hospital Attendant on 31.12.2005 in the Railway Hospital and was posted in the Operating Department on 06.02.2013. The applicant appeared in the selection of Commercial Clerk against 33 ‰% quota vide notification dated 27.09.2016 (A- 1). Respondent no. 3 declared selection panel of the impugned selection, vide order dated 24.05.2017 (A-2), wherein, the applicant could not find his name. The applicant tried to approach respondent no. 3 several times personally to know his status. The applicant applied RTI application dated 18.11.2021, where, no satisfactory information could be gathered. The applicant again moved an application seeking information under RTI dated 24.01.2023 (A-7) for the answer sheet and RTI dated 07.02.2003 (A-9). As per A-10, the applicant came to know that he has secured 80.55% marks as per the information supplied under RTI Act, 2005 vide which as per the applicant, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Commercial Clerk. The applicant thus approached the Court, but, after a period of 1863 days citing the reason that in year 2017, his wife gave birth to child with lots of complications and his mother was undergoing treatment, thus was difficult for him to approach the Court and pay the litigation fees. The applicant has further submitted that in the year 2021, respondent no. 3 got transferred from Ambala Division. Subsequently learned counsel for the applicant further Subse submitted that from March 2020 to May 2022, due to pandemic of Covid-19, the applicant could not approach well in time

2. 2. Notice was issued to respondents in MA 181/2024 seeking condonation of delay of 1863 days in approaching the Court on 01.02.2024. Respondents no. 1 and 2 in their reply have stated that the information sought under the RTI Act, 2005 would not extend the period of limitation in as much as the application seeking information was made in the year 2023 1.e. after the expiry of limitation to file the OA. It has been further submitted that the selection for the post of Commercial Clerk against 33 ‰ % ranker quota was notified in 27.09.2016 in which the applicant after securing 80.55% marks came at Serial No. 41 and there were only 22 General, 6 SC and 4 ST posts. Respondents in their reply have further submitted that the applicant citing the reason for delay of Covid -19 is not relevant as the limitation to file the OA expired in year 2018, whereas, Covid-19 came in March 2020 and there is no supporting document of the applicant’s mother getting treatment. Respondents have relied upon judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat reported as AIR 1981 SC 733 and on P.K.Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported as (1997) 7 SCC 559 and have submitted that this MA deserves to be dismissed on ground of huge delay.

3. Respondent no. 3 in their reply has stated that the panel was notified in the year 2017, whereas, the applicant has placed reliance on letter dated 08.06.2023. Respondent no. 3 has further stated that the selection marks obtained by him were disclosed to him in response to an application made by him under RTI Act, 2005 and submits that there is no allegation to be made against him.

4. Rejoinder has been filed by applicant to the reply submitted by respondents stating that the contention of respondents are not supported by any relevant document and respondent no. 3 being the nodal officer has wilfully delayed the supply of information and did not disclose the marks obtained by all the candidates including of the failures. It has been further submitted by applicant that respondent no. 3 being head of selection committee and head of personal branch is responsible for implementation o