CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

O.A. No.953 of 2015

Orders reserved on :18.12.2018

Orders pronounced on : 21.12.2018

Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)

Shri Babu Lal

s/o Sh. Munni Lal,

Aged about 44 years,

R/o C-I/5,6, Gali No.5, Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi and had applied for Primary Teacher in erstwhile

MCD (now East Delhi Municipal Corportion)

....Applicant

(By Advocate : Shri S.S. Tiwari)

VERSUS

1. Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Shyama Prasad Mukerjee Civic Centre,

Jawahar Nehru Road, New Delhi.

2. Director (Primary Education)

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Shyama Prasad Mukerjee Civic Centre,

Jawahar Nehru Road, New Delhi.

.....Respondents

(By Advocate : Shri Shantanu Kumar)

ORDER

Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following

reliefs:-

―(a)

to direct the respondents to grant extension of

benefit of order dt.7/09/09 in CWP 11331/09

passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the

case of Commissioner MCD vs. Shashi & Ors. as

well as order dt.5/6/09 in TA 163/09, order dt.

20/08/09 in TA 348/09 (Ms. Nirmal Sachdeva &

2

or vs. Lt. governor & Ors and order dt 21/11/11

in OA 1853/11 passed by this Tribunal within a

specified time limit.

(b)

to direct the respondents to appoint him as a

Primary Teacher as has been done in the case of

other similarly placed candidates who have

obtained 55 grading and above in OBC.

(c)

grant all the consequential benefits flowing from

grant of relief (a) & (b).

(d)

to pass any other order/s as may be deemed just

fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the

case.‖

2. The bare minimum facts of the case as stated by the

applicant are that the respondents invited application for the

post of Primary Teacher in erstwhile MCD schools in July

1996 and the applicant applied for the said post as an OBC

candidate. On 23.1.1998, respondents changed the criteria

and introduced the DOB but applicant was ignored.

2.1

Applicant contents that this Tribunal in the case of

Shashi & Ors. vs. Commissioner & ors in TA 163/2009 set

aside the criteria vide Order dated 5.9.2009 and another TA

348/09 was also decided on the basis of the Order passed in

TA 163/2009. Writ Petition No.11331/2009 preferred by the

respondents against the aforesaid order of this Tribunal

before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the High Court vide

Order dated 7.9.2009 dismissed the same. The applicant

further stated that in 2010-11, the candidates with 55

grading were given appointment by the MCD (now EDMC)

under OBC and 72 grading under General Category.

3

2.2

Applicant

further

submitted

that

he

moved

a

representation for grant of extension of benefit of the

decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as of this

Tribunal on 22.2.2011. However, the same has not been

replied by the respondents till date. Applicant also stated that

SLP filed by the respondents against the aforesaid decision of

the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also been dismissed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20.1.2015.

3. In the reply filed by the respondents besides giving reply

on merits of the case, the respondents have raised the

preliminary objection that the present OA is barred by

limitation.

4. From the above bare minimum facts of the case, it is

evidently clear that the present OA has not been filed within

the

period

of

limitation

as

prescribed

under

the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as this OA has been filed

on 10.3.2015 and the applicant is seeking the benefits of the

Order of this Tribunal passed in TA No.163/2009 dated

5.9.2009 which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the present

application is within limitation period as prescribed in Section

21 of the A.T. Act 1985 as the applicant is seeking