Delhi High Court
Kumar Avikal Manu vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 October, 2016
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (C) No.9706/2016
Date of decision: 21st October, 2016
KUMAR AVIKAL MANU
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Yudhister
Singh and Mr. Piyush Kaushik,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
..... Respondent
Through Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr.
Ruchir R Rai, Adv. for R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
CM No. 38838/2016
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 9706/2016
1. The petitioner-Kumar Avikal Manu by this writ petition
impugns the order dated 27.09.2016 whereby OA No.3929/2013 was
dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. The petitioner, who suffers from locomotor disability, had
W.P. (C) No. 9706/2016 Page 1 of 5
qualified in the Civil Services Examination, 2006 and is an officer of
the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax).
3. The petitioner had earlier appeared in the Civil Services
Examination, 2004, but was not appointed though he had secured
merit rank of 400. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition
(C) No.3779/2007 titled "Kumar Avikal Manu v. UOI & Ors.". The
delay in filing the writ petition, it was asserted, was on account of
delay in furnishing the relevant information and details under the
Right to Information Act, 2005, whereupon the petitioner had learnt
and understood the wrong perpetuated. A copy of this writ petition is
not on record, but the orders passed by the Single Judge would
indicate that the Union of India had offered appointment in the Indian
Ordnance Factories Service. The order dated 17.08.2007 records the
petitioner's willingness to accept the offer on the condition that the
appointment would be effective from 2004, the year in which he
appeared for the Civil Service Examinations, and grant of all benefits
that would have accrued on appointment in 2004. Obviously, the
respondents had not agreed to the conditions. During the course of
hearing, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has
produced before us a copy of the said writ petition. The petitioner had
prayed for appointment to the Indian Administrative Services or
equivalent services in pursuance of the Civil Services Examination,
W.P. (C) No. 9706/2016 Page 2 of 5
2004 with the consequential benefits of merit, seniority, promotion
and monetary emoluments.
4. The Writ Petition (C) No.3779/2007 was withdrawn as
recorded in the order dated 15.03.2010, for the petitioner had sought
liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal with the
prayer seeking appointment to the Indian Administrative Service with
consequential benefits. It was an order passed with the consent of the
petitioner.
5. The petitioner did not file and initiate proceedings before the
Tribunal for over three years, till 30.10.2013., when OA No.
3929/2013 was filed. The petitioner attempted to explain the delay
professing that he was unaware and not informed of the order dated
15.03.2010 in the Writ Petition (C) No.3779/2007.
6. We would not accept this ground as a valid and good excuse
for several reasons. The order dated 15.03.2010 specifically records
that the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the
Tribunal. It was consent order passed after taking into consideration
the instructions obtained and given by the petitioner. The
petitioner was certainly aware that he had offered appointment in the
Indian Ordnance Factories Service, having given his conditional
acceptance as recorded in the order dated 17.08.2007. The petitioner
was surely interacting with his counsel and would have followed up
W.P. (C) No. 9706/2016 Page 3 of 5
and asked him the result. It is apparent to us that the assertion and
claim of nescience is unacceptable for it lacks credibility and is a
feeble pretext and artifice to explain the unexplainable delay.
7. The petitioner having been appointed pursuant to the Civil
Services Examination, 2006, was satisfied with his appointment in the
Indian Revenue Service. Perhaps, he harboured the belief that his
prayer for back-dated appointment from 2004 was rather difficult and
tumultuous to meet acceptance. Appointment or selection in the
Indian Administrative Service looked improbable and farfetched. He
gave quietus to the matter. The petitioner's desire to revive the said
issue was reignited in 2013 once he came to know about the decision
of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. National Federation of
the Blind and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013). The decision
was highlighted and given prominence in the newspapers. The
petitioner has admitted having read about this decision in the
newspapers in his pleadings in the OA No. 3929/2013.
8. In the facts of the present case, we feel that the Tribunal was
justified in rejecting and not entertaining the original application on
the ground of limitation. Reasonable inference must be drawn that the
petitioner had accepted his appointment in the Indian Revenue
Service. He was satisfied with this appointment and for this reason,
did not file proceedings for over three years and six months after the
W.P. (C) No. 9706/2016 Page 4 of 5
order dated 15.03.2010 was passed. Subsequently, in 2013 after the
judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner thought that he could
again raise his time-barred claim and seek appointment to the Indian
Administrative Services on the basis of the result in the year 2004. It
would be wrong to ignore and condone the acceptance and
acquiescence on part of the petitioner and the resultant delay between
15.03.2010 and 30.10.2013. Pertinently, the claim of the petitioner
pertains to the Civil Service Examination, 2004. Administrative
difficulties in accepting such belated claims and prayers are apparent
and can be easily fathomed.
9. In view of the said position, we are not inclined to interfere
with the orders of the Tribunal in the present case. The writ petition is
dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 21, 2016
VLD
