Limitation for tribunal review and seniority by actual appointment date where no common merit record existed

A specific review period under the Tribunal's procedural rules could not be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act where the rules themselves prescribed the time and manner for review, so the belated review was not entertainable. On seniority, later appointees could not be placed above 1985 appointees on alleged comparative merit because there was no common panel, no reliable marks data, and the earlier appointees had not been heard. In the absence of a proved common merit list or comparable record, seniority was confined to actual dates of joining service.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal filed beyond the prescribed period under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 could be entertained by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) whether candidates appointed later pursuant to the Tribunal's directions could claim seniority over candidates appointed in 1985 on the basis of alleged inter se merit in the selection process.

Issue (i): Whether a review petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal filed beyond the prescribed period under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 could be entertained by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Rule 17 provides a specific time limit for filing a review before the Tribunal. Where the procedural rule itself prescribes the manner and period for seeking review, the general provision for extension of limitation under Section 5 does not apply unless the statutory scheme so permits. The review was therefore examined on the footing that the delay could not be condoned under the Limitation Act against the express limitation in the Tribunal Rules.

Conclusion: The review petition could not be entertained beyond the prescribed period, and the rejection of the review was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether candidates appointed later pursuant to the Tribunal's directions could claim seniority over candidates appointed in 1985 on the basis of alleged inter se merit in the selection process.

Analysis: Seniority had to be determined on the materials actually available and on a legally workable basis. There was no common panel for the 1985 selections and the later appointments, the marks of the competing candidates were not available, and the 1985 appointees had not been heard. In the absence of a proven common merit list or comparable record, seniority could not be assigned by reopening the selection on conjectural relative merit. The peculiar facts justified protecting the later appointees only from the date they actually joined service.

Conclusion: The later appointees were not entitled to seniority over the 1985 appointees on the asserted basis of comparative marks, and seniority was confined to the date of joining service.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the Tribunal's refusal to condone the belated review and limited the seniority claims of the later appointees to their actual dates of appointment, while setting aside the High Court's contrary view to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service selection record does not disclose a common panel or reliable comparative merit data, seniority cannot be determined by interpolating later appointees into an earlier seniority structure, and a specific limitation rule governing review excludes resort to the general condonation provision unless expressly made applicable.

---