Delhi High Court
Usha vs Dsssb & Anr. on 3 March, 2025
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2589/2025 & CM APPL. 12307/2025
USHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.N. Sharma, Adv.
versus
DSSSB & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and
Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 03.03.2025
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 11
September 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1,
whereby the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 620 days in
filing the OA 845/2024 and has therefore dismissed the OA on the
ground of delay.
2. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, permits
an OA to be filed within one year of the arising of the cause of action.
"the Tribunal", hereinafter
W.P.(C) 2589/2025
3. The result of the examination with which the petitioner was
aggrieved was declared on 9 April 2019. The petitioner's grievance is
that she had not been short-listed for the post of Educational and
Vocational Guidance Counsellor A (EVGC) for which the selection
was held.
4. Reckoned from 9 April 2019, one year would elapse on 8 April
2020. The OA came to be filed on 19 February 2024.
5. Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits
that, by 8 April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had struck and,
therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of extension
of the period of limitation during the currency of the pandemic
applying the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Cognizance for
Extension of Limitation, In re2
6. Even reckoned on that count, the amnesty available to the
petitioner on account of the COVID-19 pandemic would come to an
end on 28 February 2022. The OA has come to be filed on 19
February 2024, nearly two years thereafter.
7. Apropos this period, Mr Sharma submits that the petitioner's
mother-in-law was operated for cancer.
8. Mr. Sharma has shown us the prescription which indicates that
W.P.(C) 2589/2025
the petitioner's mother-in-law was operated in August 2022.
9. There is no scintilla of material anywhere on the record to
explain the delay from August 2022 till February 2024.
10. Mr. Sharma has also drawn our attention to a discharge card
indicating that the petitioner's mother was hospitalised for two days
between 4 December 2022 and 6 December 2022.
11. Clearly, the Tribunal is right in its view that there is no
reasonable explanation for the delay from August 2022 till February
2024 when the OA came to be filed.
12. Mr. Sharma's contention is that the petitioner's mother-in-law
is under continuous treatment and that the petitioner is a working lady
with a small child.
13. These factors, in our view, in the absence of any other cogent
material which would make out a case of inability on the petitioner's
part to approach the Tribunal for nearly a year and a half between
August 2022 and February 2024, cannot make out any case for
condonation of delay.
14. We are not sitting in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal.
We exercise certiorari jurisdiction. The limits of certiorari jurisdiction
are well-known.
(2022) 3 SCC 117
W.P.(C) 2589/2025
15. We cannot substitute our view for the view held by the Tribunal
especially in matters of discretion such as the decision to condone or
not to condone the delay.
16. In such matters, it is only if the Tribunal has acted in a patently
illegal manner that this Court can step in.
17. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal which stands affirmed in its entirety.
18. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MARCH 3, 2025/AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 2589/2025
