Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84276-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7059 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pashupati Nath Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribual, Allahabad Bench Allahabad And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhai Singh,Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Parcha filed by Sri Shesh Mani Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shesh Mani Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, dated 05.07.2024 in O.A. No. 330/00670/2024. The O.A. filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the same was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It has also been held that no delay condonation application was filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, and even otherwise, the delay was not condonable. 4. The petitioner filed the O.A. for the following reliefs: "(a) direct respondent railway authority concern to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on the post of Goods Guard on the basis of result declared in Central employment notice 3/2015 examination. (b) direct the respondent railway authority concerned to provide the result of the applicant regarding Central employment notice 3/2015 examination. (c) direct respondent railway authority concern General Manager Railway Recruitment Board to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant dated 28.12.2023. (d) Issue any other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. The respondents issued an advertisement in the year 2015, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Goods Guard. 6. The case of the petitioner was that he appeared in the written test and was declared successful. The select list was published on the official website of the respondents, wherein the name of the petitioner was also mentioned but after some time, the select list was removed from the official website. The petitioner was not issued any appointment letter, although other candidates were offered the appointment. It is stated that when the petitioner became aware of the appointment of other candidates, he preferred an application on 28.02.2023 to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur, with a prayer to decide the same. He also sent reminder on 21.08.2023, but when no heed was paid to the same, the petitioner preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal. 7. Before the Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents with regard to O.A. being barred by limitation. The said plea of the respondents has been sustained and it has been held that the O.A. filed before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. In so holding, the Tribunal has considered the fact that the dispute related to appointment in pursuance of Advertisement No. 3 of 2015 issued in the year 2015. He himself mentioned in the O.A. that result was declared in the year 2015. The petitioner did not agitate the matter at that time. After eight years, the petitioner filed the O.A., claiming parity with other selected candidates. According to Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the limitation for filing the claim before the Tribunal was one year, extendable by another six months. Beyond the said period, delay can be condoned for sufficient cause, as per Section 21(3) of the Act. However, no delay condonation application was filed. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware that other candidates had been offered appointment and he kept making the representation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the claim was barred by limitation. 9. This plea has also been considered by the Tribunal and it has held that filing of successive representations would not result in extension of limitation. The Tribunal relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., 1990 SCC (L&S) 50 and Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu and others vs. R.D. Valand, 1995 Supp(4) SCC 593 wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 21 and held that filing of successive non-statutory representations will not result in enlargement of the limitation. 10. We fully endorse the findings recorded by the Tribunal in respect of the preliminary objection relating to limitation. The claim for appointment made in the year 2024 on basis of selection process held in the year 2015 was definitely highly belated. 11. As we find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal, the petition is dismissed. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 20.5.2025/Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad