Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Adarsh Kanojia vs Home Affairs on 4 December, 2025
(OA No.783-2025)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
M.A. No.934/2025
in
O.A. No.783/2025
Reserved on:27.11.2025
Pronounced on:04.12.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr.Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Adarsh Kanojia,
Aged about 36 years
Roll Number 23059397
S/o Sh.Chandrapal Kanojia
R/o B-194, Deen Dayal Nagar
Khati Baba Road, Jhansi-284003
Uttar Pradesh
Applied for the post of Assistant
Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. Ramesh Rawat, Legal Aid Counsel)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. The Director General
Intelligence Bureau
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. R.V.Sinha, Mr. A.S.Singh and Ms.Shriya Sharma)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
MA No.934/2025 This MA has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 6 years (around 2190 days) in filing of the Original Application (OA) before this Tribunal.
2. The applicant seeks condonation of delay of aforesaid days stating that since the respondents did not provide the information to him about his marks obtained, cut-off marks, a certified copy of his OMR sheet and a model answer key in pursuant to the recruitment KEDAR KEDA RAM 2025.12.11 R RAM 17:05:47 +05'30' (OA No.783-2025) (2) process for the post of Assistant Central Intelligence, Officer Grade-II he was compelled to approach before the Central Information Commission (CIC), Hon'ble Delhi High Court and finally Hon'ble Supreme Court which stood dismissed on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is exempted under 24 of the RTI Act. Thus, upon finalisation of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant was advised that it is a service matter, and this Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Thus, the applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the respondents.
3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance the following judgments:
i) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, [A.I.R. 1987 (S.C.) 1353]
ii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek and Ors., 2010 (14) SCC 419;
iii) Ram Nath Sao Alia Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195;
iv) Gujrat High Court in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
v) State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, (2005) 3 SCC 752
vi) Bombay High Court in Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport v. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors.
Writ Petition No.8045 of 2023.
4. The respondents in reply to the MA have stated that the applicant failed to explain the reasons for approaching this Tribunal belatedly. It is further submitted that the applicant has not given any satisfactory reason to explain the delay in filing of the OA. The applicant is required under law to explain the day to day explanation for delay in filing of the OA and to show sufficient cause for such delay to seek discretionary relief of this Tribunal for grant of condonation of delay.
5. It is also submitted that the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a special law and limitation is specifically provided in Section 21 of the Act which the applicant does not satisfy.
OA No.783/2025By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
KEDAR KEDA RAM 2025.12.11 R RAM 17:05:47 +05'30' (OA No.783-2025) (3) "A. Call for record of the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II exam 2017.
B. Direct the respondents to provide mark obtained by the applicant, cut-
off marks, a certified copy of his OMR sheet and a model answer key to the applicant in pursuant to the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II exam.
B. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant appeared in the recruitment process conducted by the respondents for Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II exam in the year 2017. There were media-wide reports about some irregularities in the conduct of the exam. When applicant did not clear the exam, he moved an application under RTI seeking details of marks obtained, cut-off marks, a certified copy of his OMR sheet and a model answer key. On 02.02.2018, the applicant submitted a representation regarding rechecking of his answer sheet which has not been answered by the respondents till date. The application under RTI of the applicant was rejected on the ground that the information sought by him cannot be disclosed under Section 24 of the RTI Act since the Intelligence Bureau is mentioned in the exempt category in Schedule 11 of the Act. It is submitted that Section 24 of the RTI Act excludes the application of the Act to intelligence and security organizations established by the Central Government. Since no reply was provided by the CPIO, the applicant moved first appeal which also resulted in to 'No Communication' and the applicant was constrained to approach Central Information Commission (CIC).
3. It is submitted that the CIC dismissed the Second Appeal filed by applicant holding that information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 24 of RTI Act. Thereafter, as already mentioned, the applicant filed Writ Petition WP (C) No 12264/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which stood dismissed vide order dated 15.112019. The applicant also preferred LPA No 696/2023 before the High Court of Delhi. Upon dismissal of the LPA, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP which also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 13.05.2024. Applicant contends that since the respondents have not provided any information with regard to the recruitment process of the applicant, he has no other remedy but to approach this Tribunal. Hence the present O.A. KEDAR KEDA RAM 2025.12.11 R RAM 17:05:47 +05'30' (OA No.783-2025) (4)
4. The respondents in their short reply have stated that the present O.A. is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as the applicant has tried to substitute the present O.A. with the RTI reliefs which has already been decided upto Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the present OA is not only barred by limitation but it is also barred by principle of res judicata.
5. It is submitted that the applicant has not sought any substantial relief but he has sought information/documents from the department.
It is also pleaded that with the same relief the applicant herein filed application under RTI Act, 2005 and the same was rejected by the respondents. Thereafter, the applicant has filed first appeal which was dismissed, then the applicant has filed second appeal before the CIC under RTI Act, 2005 and after hearing the matter, the CIC passed detailed order. In view of the immunity granted to the respondent No.2 from disclosure under Section 24(1) of RTI Act, 2005, the appeal was dismissed and after dismissal of the appeal, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the same relief by way of WP(C) No.12264/2019 before the Single Bench, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed LPA No.796/2023 for the same relief before Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2023.
6. It is reiterated that the applicant thereafter approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP(C) Dy.No. 15336/2024 and the Apex Court also was not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court and dismissed the SLP. Thus, the issue has attained finality and the present application is barred by principle of res judicata.
7. We have heard both the parties in the aforesaid MA. The applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 6 years (around 2190 days) in filing the O.A. The stated reason for delay in filing the OA is that the applicant was going on a wrong track/direction and therefore he was unable to file OA before this Tribunal in time. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the delay was not a result of any indolence or negligence but was caused because the applicant was seeking remedy through appropriate statutory and judicial forums. The learned counsel further states that the applicant had approached the KEDAR KEDA RAM 2025.12.11 R RAM 17:05:47 +05'30' (OA No.783-2025) (5) CIC, Hon'ble Delhi High Court and finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the impression that the RTI Act is to be the correct route. It was only upon the conclusion of those proceedings he was advised to approach this Tribunal. He contends that pursuing remedies in wrong forum based on legal advice does not tantamount to sufficient cause. Countering the claim of the respondents, he further submits that it was not the luxurious litigation and the delay was not intentional or malicious. He also places reliance the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs Katiji, AIR 1987 2 SCC 107 which held as follows:
"When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay."
8. Learned counsel for the respondents based on the submissions made in the counter reply reiterates that the delay of approximately 6 years in filing the OA squarely attracts the provision of limitation, as provided in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and it is hopelessly barred by limitation. Moreover, no documentary proof
(s) for the averments made in the MA has been filed by the applicant which appears to be a ploy to cover up the negligence and luxurious attitude of the applicant.
9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the respective parties. Facts are not in dispute. The delay of 6 years in filing the OA is also not disputed. But to our mind, the explanation given by the applicant for delayed filing of the O.A. is wholly unsatisfactory and there is no valid ground for exercise of power by this Tribunal under the relevant rules. Section 21 of the Act which reads as follows:
"21. Limitation.-(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-
section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where-
KEDAR
KEDA RAM
2025.12.11
R RAM 17:05:47
+05'30'
(OA No.783-2025)
(6)
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause
(a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
10. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub- section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).
11. We have also considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the claim for condonation of delay. But we are of the view that applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonaion of delay. We are also not convinced by the submission that all this while applicant has been seeking redressal of his grievances on a wrong forum, disabling him from approaching this Tribunal within limitation.
12. In view of above discussions, MA No.934/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA is dismissed, along with the OA. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/kdr/
KEDAR
KEDA RAM
2025.12.11
R RAM 17:05:47
+05'30'