CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI MA No. 3097/2025 RA No. 59/2023 CP No. 87/2022 Order Reserved on: 09.12.2025 Order Pronounced on: 06.01.2026 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Union Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069 - Applicant in MA (By Advocates: Mr. Naresh Kaushik assisted by Mr. Vardhman Kaushik and Ms. Shikha John)

Versus Karanti Goyal, RB 133, RBI Colony, Sector 06, RK Puram, New Delhi-110022 & Ors.

- Respondents in MA (By Advocates: Sh. Pankaj Sinha with Ms. Garima, Ms. Humaira Salam and Mr. Sunil Tiwari)

ORDER Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The Applicant (UPSC) has filed the present application seeking directions to the Registry to call for records relating to the filing and processing of Review Application (R.A.) No. 59 of 2023 and for appropriate orders. The Applicant (original respondent) relies upon the pleadings already filed in the Review Application and the rejoinder. The Review Application was originally filed on 02.12.2021 through email, as physical filing was suspended during the COVID- 19 period. The impugned order sought to be reviewed is dated

23.06.2021.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant in MA submitted that the Respondent in MA (original applicant) has raised a hyper-technical objection that the Review Application, though filed in December 2021, was listed only in April 2023 and is therefore barred by limitation and non-est. Upon inspection of the Registry record, the Applicant (original respondent) found that certain objections were noted by the Registry, namely: a. Proof of service not filed; b. Application allegedly barred by limitation with no condonation application; c. Certified copy of the impugned order not filed; and d. Separate affidavit for condonation of delay not filed. These objections were never communicated to the Applicant’s counsel due to COVID-

19 restrictions.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant in MA further submitted that the objections were untenable as: a. Service had already been effected in November 2021 and acknowledged by the Respondent (original applicant); b. Certified copies were not readily available during COVID restrictions; c. There was no delay in filing, as limitation stood extended under the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu W.P. No. 30 of 2020; and d. the filing was valid as per the procedure prevailing during the COVID period.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant in MA also urged that the existence of the Review Application came to light during the hearing of Contempt Petition No. 87 of 2022 on 10.04.2023, after which the Applicant’s counsel approached the Registry and, for the first time in April 2023, was informed of the defects.

5. It is submitted that the Applicant’s counsel thereafter gave an undertaking regarding limitation being covered by the Supreme Court’s suo motu orders, cured the defects, and filed the vakalatnama. Upon satisfaction, the Registrar registered and numbered the Review Application as R.A. No. 59 of 2023 by order dated 24.04.2023, in accordance with Rules 15 and 17(e) of the CAT Rules of Practice, 1993. The Review Application was listed before the Tribunal on 26.04.2023. The Respondent (original applicant) has not challenged the Registrar’s order dated 24.04.2023 registering and numbering the Review Application. The Tribunal, by order dated 21.09.2023, effectively condoned any delay in re-filing, if at all, thereby negating the Respondent’s objection on limitation.

6. It is also contended that issues relating to filing and listing are matters between the Court and the Applicant (original respondent), and the Respondent (original applicant) has no locus to raise objections on this ground.

7. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the Applicant in MA relies on the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Del 636) to submit that the