HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13771 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 23.07.2025 passed in Original Application (O.A.) No. 372 of 2018 whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner aggrieved of cancellation of his candidature for promotion to the post of Assistant Signal and Telecommunication Engineer Group-B for Assessment Year 2011-13, has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot and was promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, was in Pay Band-I with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- as on 26.05.2005. Notification was issued by the respondents seeking applications for 30% LDCE quota vacancies for promotion from Group-C to Group-B Post, wherein the eligibility inter alia was that the person must have served for five years till the cut off date in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and the cut off date was 01.04.2011. The petitioner was permitted to participate in the written examination, however at the stage of viva-voce, his candidature was rejected with reference to letter dated 05.12.2014 issued by D.R.M. (Personnel), Allahabad. 3. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner sought copy of the letter dated 05.12.2014, which was not supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. 4. The sheet anchor of the petitioner's case was Establishment Rule No. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akshay Raghuvanshi, B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shashi Prakash Singh (Sr. Advocate) A.S.G.I. with Manu Vardhana Anil Kumar Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Union of India and 5 others .....Respondent(s) 104 of 2011 dated 01.07.2011, which dealt with comparison of grades of running staff with those of stationery staff for the purpose of promotion/selection to Group-B Post, wherein for the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- was equated to Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. 5. Reply to the O.A. was filed wherein though throughout the reply, reliance was placed on letter dated 05.12.2014 issued by the D.R.M. (Personnel), in paragraph 35 of the reply, it was indicated that letter dated 05.12.2014 has no existence in the personnel file of the Personnel Department of Prayagraj Division. 6. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal after discussing the issue on merit till para 11 of its order and thereafter in para 12, suddenly referring to the fact that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal with delay, dismissed the O.A. on the ground of delay and laches. 7. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to appear in the viva-voce, is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the material available on record, the foundational document pertaining to the passing of the order, is missing even from the record of the respondents and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the O.A., besides the fact that in view of the Establishment Rule No. 104 of 2011 dated 01.07.2011, the petitioner was eligible. 8. Submission has been made that the delay was appropriately explained by the petitioner in filing the O.A., however the said M.A. also has been dismissed in a cursory manner by the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the order impugned. Submissions were made that the Tribunal has found the O.A. as barred by limitation and has rightly dismissed the same. Further attempt was made to argue that instead of the petitioner, somebody else might have been promoted at the relevant time, who has not been impleaded as party to the O.A., however, apparently no such plea was taken before the Tribunal. WRIA No. 13771 of 2025 2 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal, we are firmly of the opinion that the Tribunal while discussing the matter on merit, for no apparent reason has taken the route of dismissing the O.A. on the ground of limitation, which in the circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. Once the matter was being considered on merit, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to decide the same on merits and the O.A. could not have been dismissed based on the limitation, which determination also apparently is wholly cursory. 11. In view thereof, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 372 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to hear and decide the O.A. on merits. Looking to the fact that the O.A. was filed in the year 2018, it is expected of the Tribunal to decide the same with utmost expedition. September 22, 2025 Sandeep/Sazia WRIA No. 13771 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad