Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13874

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative Member
Ankush Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.060/651/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. RPS Bora
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr. Pankaj Khurana and Mr. Sahil Batra

Delayed claims for service upgradation barred by laches despite similarity to successful timely litigant; law aids vigilant, not fence-sitters sleeping over rights; prior in personam judgment not auto-extended sans delay condonation.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service allocation in civil services - Upgradation from lower preference service to higher preference service due to non-joining of higher-ranked candidates - Allocation marked provisional with asterisk indicating chance of upgradation - Junior candidate (rank 332) successfully obtained upgradation via litigation in 2019 upheld up to Supreme Court - Senior candidate (rank 331) seeking similar upgradation after 5-year delay - Claim dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay, laches, acquiescence, and negligence despite provisional allocation and awareness obligation - Law aids vigilant, not those sleeping over rights - Judgment in prior case in personam, not extending automatically to fence-sitters - Unsettling settled allocations after years improper per DoP&T O.M. dated 07.02.1986 on vacancy carry-forward - No financial loss as pay scales equal - No condonation of delay sought or justified. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 16, 18)

(B) Service jurisprudence - Similarly situated persons - Benefit of judgment to one not automatically to others if delayed - Exception to equality where laches, acquiescence; fence-sitters disentitled despite identical situation - Personam judgment requires timely claim sans delay explanation. (Paras 15-16)

(C) Limitation and delay condonation - Cause of action arises on vacancy event (non-joining, 2018), not knowledge of junior's success - Casual plea of ignorance unconvincing where litigation mentioned claimant and asterisk signaled vigilance duty - No RTI/effort shown; negligence defeats right - Public policy demands end to litigation. (Paras 12, 17)

Facts of the case:
Civil Services Examination 2017 candidate (rank 331, general category) allocated to 5th preference service (IA&AS) on 31.07.2018 (provisional, asterisked); appointed 14.11.2018, trained. Two higher candidates allocated to 3rd preference service (IRS(IT)) did not join, creating vacancies. Junior (rank 332) litigated promptly (OA 2018, allowed 19.03.2019), upgraded. Claimant learned recently (2023), represented, filed OA seeking upgradation with consequential benefits.

Findings of Court:
Original Application filed with unexplained delay/laches ~5 years from 2018 cause (vacancies); dismissed. No auto-upgradation duty on department; claimant negligent, failed vigilance despite provisional mark. Prior relief in personam; equals not extended sans timely action. Vacancies carried forward per policy; unsettling disruptive post multiple batches.

Issues: Whether senior candidate entitled to upgradation to higher preference service against 2017 vacancies due to non-joining, parity with upgraded junior, despite 5-year delay; scope of prior judgments; delay condonation.

Ratio Decidendi: Claims for service upgradation barred by laches if not pursued vigilantly at vacancy accrual; in personam relief to timely litigant not cascades to delayed 'fence-sitters' despite similarity; provisional allocations demand candidate proactivity; administrative chain stability prevails over belated equity post vacancy carry-forward.

Result: Original Application dismissed on delay and laches. No costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant's prayer for service upgradation from ia&as to irs(it) (Para 1 , 2)
2. junior's successful litigation for irs(it) upgradation due to vacancies (Para 3)
3. applicant's claim of discrimination and departmental duty (Para 4 , 6)
4. vacancies carried forward; upgradation disrupts allocation chain (Para 5)
5. recount of cse-2017 process and agam singh bedi's in personam relief (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
6. delay and laches bar late claims despite vigilance principle (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
7. delay dismissal for negligent approach (Para 13)
8. in personam judgments not extendable without timely action (Para 15 , 16)
9. limitation forfeits delayed remedies regardless of merits (Para 17)
10. unsettling allocations after years improper (Para 18)
11. oa dismissed due to unexplained delay and laches (Para 19)

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

i) A direction may be issued to the respondent to upgrade the service allocation of the applicant, Ankush Kumar (Rank 331) from Indian Audit & Accounts Service (hereinafter referred to as ’IA&AS’) to Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) (hereinafter referred to as ’IRS(IT)’) in the Civil Services List of 2017 with all the consequential benefits viz Seniority of Civil Service Examination 2017 candidates i.e. above of my immediate junior Agam Singh Bedi (rank 332) in IRS (IT) in view of the fact that service allocation of one candidate Agam Singh Bedi (Rank 332), junior to the applicant in merit list, was also upgraded from Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) (hereinafter referred to as ’IRS(C&CE)’) to IRS (IT) due to two vacant vacancies because of non - joining of two candidates by way of orders passed by this Tribunal.

(ii) Further, the DOPT be directed to appoint the petitioner from the due date with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, arrears, seniority etc. and further create a supernumerary post in IRS (IT) for adjustment of the applicant or revise the service allocation of the immediate junior candidate as per Civil Services Examination Rank and Merit.

2. The summarized facts of the case are that the applicant being fully eligible for appointment under the All-India Services, had applied under the Civil Services Examination, 2017under General Category. The result of the preliminary examination, conducted on 18.06.2017, was declared on 27.07.2017. After the preliminary result, the candidates are required to list their preferences in the detailed application form and the order of preferences given by the applicant were (i) Indian Administrative Services (ii) Indian Police Services (iii) Indian Revenue Services (IT), (iv) Indian Foreign Services (v) and Indian Audit & Accounts Service (IA&AS) (Annexure A-3). The applicant cleared the mains examination and interview held by the UPSC. Thereafter, the final result was declared by the UPSC on 27.04.2018 (Annexure A-4) wherein the applicant secured rank 331 in the merit list and one candidate namely Agam Singh Bedi, secured rank 332 . In pursuance thereof, a service allocation list (SAL) for the selected candidates of Civil Service Examination, 2017 was issued by the respondent on 31.07.2018 (Annexure A-7)and in the said list, the applicant was allocated IA&AS. It has also been submitted that candidates listed till rank 329 were allocated IRS (IT) and the candidate at rank 330 was a reserved category candidate and was appointed to IAS under his reserved category. In the allocation list, an asterisk (*) was marked against the service allocated to the applicant, which means that the allocation is provisional and there is chance for upgradation of the same. The respondent issued a general letter dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure A-8) vide which the recommended candidates of Civil Services Examination, 2017 were nominated for the foundation course. However, the letter sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13874

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSuresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative MemberAnkush Kumar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No.060/651/2023

Delayed claims for service upgradation barred by laches despite similarity to successful timely litigant; law aids vigilant, not fence-sitters sleeping over rights; prior in personam judgment not auto-extended sans delay condonation.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative Member
Ankush Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.060/651/2023