Limitation for seniority disputes runs from rejection of objections to a provisional list, not the earlier list.

Where a provisional seniority list invites objections and states that finality will follow consideration of those objections, limitation runs from the later rejection of objections, not from the earlier list. The High Court held that the Tribunal had misapplied delay, laches and limitation by treating the earlier seniority list as the starting point, without properly accounting for the provisional list and the subsequent decision on representations. The finding of delay was therefore unsustainable, the cause of action arose on the rejection of objections dated 13.01.2020, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Original Application was barred by delay and laches and limitation; (ii) Whether the cause of action arose from the earlier seniority list or from the rejection of objections to the provisional seniority list.

Issue (i): Whether the Original Application was barred by delay and laches and limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal's jurisdiction is governed by the statutory scheme under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, including the limitation period and the power to condone delay on sufficient cause. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, delay and laches may defeat stale claims, but the Court found that the Tribunal had not correctly appreciated the relevant starting point for limitation. The impugned rejection proceeded on the premise of delay from the 2013 seniority list without properly accounting for the later provisional list and the subsequent decision on objections.

Conclusion: The finding of delay and laches and limitation was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the cause of action arose from the earlier seniority list or from the rejection of objections to the provisional seniority list.

Analysis: The revised provisional seniority list issued in 2019 invited objections and indicated that it would attain finality only after considering such objections. The petitioner submitted representations against that list, and those objections were rejected on 13.01.2020. The Court held that, in these circumstances, the cause of action arose from the rejection of the objections and not from the earlier seniority list. The writ petition before the Tribunal was therefore within time on that footing.

Conclusion: The cause of action arose from the rejection dated 13.01.2020, not from the earlier seniority list.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a provisional seniority list expressly invites objections and the administration decides those objections later, limitation and laches are to be counted from the rejection of the objections, not from the earlier provisional list.

---