The High Court
Case Details
Order No. ` 02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2918 of 2025 Bipin Kumar …. Petitioner Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 25.08.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Bipin Kumar challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 846 of 2019. The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal with the following prayers: "(i] for quashing the submission with respect to information sought vide item no.-l issued vide letter dated 31.12.2015 contained in Annexure-A/8 as decision of the responsible respondents is expect, full of modified and erroneous because if there was any deficiencies in the documents with form then the responsible respondent should not issued his admit card twice and sought not have declared the results of successful candidate. (ii) For issuance of a direction to the responsible respondents to issue letter to the petitioner for Page 1 of 5 certificate verifications. (iii) For a direction to the responsible respondents to issue joining letter after giving relaxation if any after verification of original certificate if it is found that certificate is genuine and correct. (iv) For a direction for taken legal action against the erring respondents.” Along with the Original Application, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application bearing M.A. No. 136 of 2022 to condone the delay in filing the Original Application, but the learned Tribunal taking note of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India and others -Vrs.- Biswanath Kumar & another passed in W.P.(C) No. 6268 of 2021 disposed of on 31.07.2021 has been pleaded to held as follows: “8. We have considered the rival submission of the parties with reference to the pleadings, materials placed in support thereof so also arguments advanced. Keeping in mind the law enumerated, as discussed above, it is on record that the notification for recruitment to the post, in question, was of 28.10.2006. Applicant along with others appeared the written test held on 07.10.2007 and PET on 04.04.2008. The result of the PET was published on 20.01.2010. Soon after, the test, certificate verification was started but according to the applicant, he was not called for such verification but it is not in dispute that he sought information under RTl Act in 2015, i.e. five years after the declaration of PET result and approached the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna, which was dismissed on the round of jurisdiction on 23.02.2016. Thus, the very approach of the applicant before the CAT, Patna Bench was Page 2 of 5 obviously beyond the period of limitation provided under the RTI Act. As admitted by the applicant, he approached this Tribunal after two years and ten months of dismissal of the OA by the CAT, Patna Bench. The grounds as ascribed by the applicant for the delay is his illness and the illness of his mother but nowhere it is stated that the applicant was completed bedridden for the aforesaid period, which disabled him to file the OA before this Bench. Besides, the prayer of the applicant to quash the information provided under RTI Act, which is also beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Further, the matter relates to the selection and appointment to the post as per the notification issued in the year 2006 and thus, interfering in the matter at this distance place without sufficient reason would tantamount to unsettling of a settled matter at the distance point of time. Be that as it may, for the discussions made above, since the grounds assigned by the applicant to overcome the law of limitation does not sound to judicial conscience, we are not inclined to condone the delay so as to enter into the merit of the matter.” In the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. -Vrs.- Jaswant Singh and others reported in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 464 relying on the decision in the case of Jagdish Lal and others -Vrs.- State of Haryana and others reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 538 held as follows: “9. The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long Page 3 of 5 and woke up when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Singh Chauhan case. The appellants' desperate attempt to redo the seniority is not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arif Azim Co. Ltd. -Vrs. Aptech Ltd. reported in (2024) 5 Supreme Court Cases 313 has held as follows: “44. The basic premise behind the statutes providing for a limitation period is encapsulated by the maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" which translates to "the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights". The object behind having a prescribed limitation period is to ensure that there is certainty and finality to litigation and assurance to the opposite party that it will not be subject to an indefinite period of liability. Another object achieved by a fixed limitation period is to only allow those claims which are initiated before the deterioration of evidence takes place. The law of limitation does not act to extinguish the right but only bars the remedy.” On a bare reading of the operative portion of the order, the petitioner was not vigilant and he has not sought for the remedy at right time and even after the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench dismissed the Original Application on the ground of jurisdiction on 23.02.2016, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal after a gap of two years and ten months and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Moreover, the selection and appointment to the post as per the notification was issued in 2006 and the petitioner is now aged about 52 years. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order. Page 4 of 5 Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) PKSahoo Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 26-Aug-2025 13:01:45 Page 5 of 5