RANJIT KUMAR ROUT vs Aviation Research Center on 10 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not giving him appointment to the post of Fireman on the basis of advertisement and non consideration of his representation has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) To admit the Original Application and direct the respondents to give appointment to the applicant in the vacant post of Fireman on the basis of Advertisement No. ARC/Par-II/18/Fireman/2012-1224 dated 07.08.2012 and on dated 28.02.2013. b) To consider the representation pending under Annexure 5 series before the authority within a stipulated time. c) And pass such order/orders as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that in pursuant to advertisement for the post of Fireman issued by the respondents vide Annexure A/1 the applicant had applied for the same and was called to attend the

Kalpeswar Behera interview on 01.04.2013 vide admit card bearing roll No. CBT FM

22. It is submitted that applicant appeared in the interview and then was called to appear before the selection committee for final verification of documents. It is submitted that he came to know that five candidates were appointed and three posts are still lying vacant but he was not given appointment. It is submitted that applicant approached the respondent no. 1 on several occasions and made representations but the same has still not been considered.

3. The respondents have filed counter inter alia averring that a circular dated 03.08.2012 was issued for filing up 8 vacancies (UR 4, SC 2, ST 1 and OBC 1) of Fireman on Direct Recruitment basis in ARC, Charbatia Cuttack. It is submitted that after revised allocation of posts in Fire Service Cadre the vacancy position in respect of Direct Recruitment for ARC, Charbatia was changed to 6 vacancies ( UR 3, SC 1, ST 1 and OBC 1) with the approval of the competent authority. It is submitted that 108 eligible applicants were issued admit card for measurement of Physical Standard, Physical Efficiency Test, Driving Test and interview. The selection board assessed the merit of the candidates and on the basis of recommendation 6 candidates

Kalpeswar Behera were selected and wherein the applicant was placed at 11th position. The applicant who was UR candidate scored 101 marks but there were other UR candidates with 165 marks, 144 marks, 139 marks, 128 marks and 125 marks. One SC candidates had scored 133 andanother 116 marks (disqualified on scrutiny of documents). Three OBC candidates had scored 113m 105 and

102. As per the said merit list 3 UR, 1 SC and 1 OBC was selected and none from ST Category and offer of appointment were issued and they had joined. It is submitted that the respondents had received a legal notice dated 20.02.2015 from Advocate of Orissa High Court on behalf of applicant and reply was given vide letter dated 24.03.2015 wherein his non selection in the said recruitment process was informed/replied. It is submitted that a representation of the applicant dated Nil addressed to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India was received and the same was also replied to vide letter dated 14.07.2016. It is submitted that OA is barred by limitation. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

Kalpeswar Behera

5. From the counter it is evidently clear that the applicant was not selected for the appointment as per his marks scored. The applicant had also prayed for condonation of delay by filing MA No. 553/2019 stating that applicant was seriously ill on hypertension and undergone treatment in private nursing home since May, 2013 and therefore could not file the OA.

6. It is a well settled principle that delay defeats equity. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC479 in the following terms: "17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage."

7. The Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137 observed that it is now well settled that filing of series of representations cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner and Delay or Laches are a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to

Kalpeswar Behera whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration as law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.

8. The Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322 held that series of representation cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner. The Apex Court, at Paragraph 6, held as follows:

6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another (2008)10 SCC 115 the Apex Court held that Reply to the representation relating to matter which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. The replies to such representations cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.

9. The Apex Court had occasion to examine such a situation in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkarb (2010) 2 SCC 59 wherein the Court held as follows: "The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead’ issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to

Kalpeswar Behera consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."

10. It is relevant to refer to a Seven Judge Bench judgment in the case of S.S. Rathorevs State of Madhya Pradesh 1989 SCC (4) 582 while dealing with the cause of action in a case of service dispute in view of the special limitation prescribed under Section 21(1)(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, inter alia, held that the repeated representation would not give rise to cause of action nor would condone the delay.

6. In view of the above discussions and settled position of law, we find that the OA is barred by limitations. Accordingly the MA No. 553/2019 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly the OA stands dismissed. Pending MAs stand disposed of. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera