Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996
8. On merits, we have seen that the applicant has
appeared in IPOs Examination-1999 under the ST
category, which was conducted from 11 to 13 January,
2000. He did not qualify the said exam. The rules
applicable at the said time was DOPT OM No.
36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22 July 1997, which
clearly provided that the various instructions of the
Government providing for lower qualifying
marks/lesser standards of evaluation in matters of
promotion for candidates belonging to the SC/ST had
been withdrawn, on the basis of the Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of S. Vinod Kumar &
Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in JT
1996 (8) SC 643). As far as DOPT OM No.
36012/23/96-Estt.(Res.) Vol. II dated 03.10.2000 is
concerned, the same is not applicable in the case of
the applicant as para 4 of the said OM clearly states
that "these orders shall take effect in respect of
selections to be made on or after the date of issue of
this OM and selections finalized earlier shall not be
disturbed."
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Bhoop Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 April, 1992
3. (a) Respondents after issue of notices filed their
reply raising objection of limitation stating that the
claim of the applicant is belated. It was further stated
that the period of limitation for filing an O.A. under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is
to be counted from the original date of cause of action
and mere filing a representation does not extend the
period of limitation and relied upon the case of Bhoop
Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in JT 1992
(3) S.C. 322. The respondents also relied on several
judgments on limitation on stale and dead issue and
orders passed in compliance of directions by
Courts/Tribunals, the date of such a decision cannot be
5
OA No. 291/727/2013
considered as a fresh cause of action for reviving
'dead' issue or time barred issue. Thus, the present
case suffers from delay and laches and deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the
pleadings, before coming to the facts of the case, we
would like to deal with the plea of limitation raised by
the respondents. In the present case, the applicant
appeared in IPOs Exam-1999 for which the results
10
OA No. 291/727/2013
were already declared in the year 2000. The applicant
for the first time made a representation dated
22.05.2012 after a lapse of around 12 years from the
said exam/result. Without waiting for the outcome of
the decision on the said representation, the applicant
filed O.A. No. 672/2012 before this Bench of the
Tribunal, wherein this Tribunal vide its order dated
25.09.2012 without going into merits of the case,
directed the respondents to consider the
representation of the applicant dated 22.05.2012 and
if the case of the similarly situated persons are going
to be considered by way of review, in such eventuality,
the respondents may also consider the said
representation of the applicant on its own merit and
may pass orders in this regard. As seen, the applicant
appeared in IPOs Exam-1999, but representation was
filed on 22.05.2012. Orders passed by the respondents
dated 21.08.2013, in compliance to the directions of
this Tribunal, on the said representation does not give
a fresh cause of action to come within the period of
limitation. As the actual cause of action arose way
back in the year 2000 when the results of IPOs Exam-
1999 were declared and the applicant was not found
successful in the said examination, therefore, as
observed by several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
11
OA No. 291/727/2013
Court, including that of Union of India & Ors. vs.
M.K. Sarkar, reported in JT 2009 (15) SC 70, relevant
para 9.1 of the judgment are as under:-
1