HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15005 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the Original Application, filed by the petitioners has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. The OA was filed by the petitioners seeking to question the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by respondent No. 3 and for a direction to issue a letter of appointment pursuant to the examinations, held in the year 2013-14. 3. Plea was raised that similar matter has already been decided by the High Court in Writ-A No.21098 of 2018, decided on 16.05.2023 and that as the petitioners are similarly placed, they are entitled to same relief. 4. Along with the OA, a miscellaneous application was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA. Submissions were made that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to some unavoidable circumstances, which were beyond the control of the petitioners and that the petitioners were given assurance that they would be accorded appointment and, therefore, they could not approach the Tribunal in time. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Metro Politan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu : (2014) 4 SCC 108, inter alia, came to the conclusion that the applicants were required to be diligent and should have approached the Tribunal without delay and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal Shailesh Kumar and another .....Petitioner(s) Union of India and 3 others .....Respondent(s) fence-sitters, who approached the Court without any explanation, are not entitled and consequently, dismissed the OA. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the OA. Submissions have been made that the representations/applications made by the petitioners continued to remain pending with the respondents and the same having not been decided at any point of time and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have approached the Tribunal with delay. 7. Further submissions have been made that once the similarly placed candidates have been accorded relief, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no reason not to grant similar relief to the petitioners. 8. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 9. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 10. Admittedly, the order impugned was passed on 31.03.2016 and except for making representations, no steps were taken by the petitioners to question the validity of the order dated 31.03.2016 for all the years and apparently, only after the writ petition was decided in the year 2023 and Special Leave Petition has been rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners have woken up from the slumber to question the validity of the order passed nine years back with a view to take advantage of the orders passed in the case of similarly placed candidates who had approached the Court in time. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down and has reiterated in the case of Chennai Metro Politan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra) that fence-sitters are not entitled to seek relief, based on the decided cases, unless they approach the Court in time. 12. The explanation given in the application seeking condonation of delay does not contain any reasons except for indicating that due to unavoidable WRIA No. 15005 of 2025 2 circumstances, which were beyond the control of the petitioners, they could not file the petition in time, which purported explanation for the delay of 9 years has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. 13. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no substance in the petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. October 14, 2025 Jyotsana/Mukesh Pal WRIA No. 15005 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad