- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.2.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dismissing the original application No. 1208 of 1998 filed by the petitioner, as not maintainable, and the order dated 9.2.2000 dismissing the review application of the petitioner.
(2.) We have heard Sri Navin Kumar Gupta holding brief of Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioners claiming appointment under the M.R. (Loyalist Quota) approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the first time in 1998 in original application No. 1208 of 1998 and by the impugned order their application was rejected. It appears from the order of the learned Tribunal that the circular providing such appointment was issued on 18.5.1974. None of the petitioners were even eligible for appointment since they were minor or had even not born in 1974 but it appears that their fathers were working in the railways and despite call of the strike attended their duties showing their loyalty to the department. The petitioner either born after several years of the circular dated 18.5.1974 or were minor at that time, thus, could not have got any benefit under this circular. The factum that the petitioners born much after the aforesaid circular, is apparent from the fact that petitioner No. 5, Radhey Shyam has shown his date of birth as 1.1.1982 vide Annexure II to the writ petition. Similarly, petitioner No. 1, Vinod Kumar Gupta has shown his age as 24 years in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition sworn in July, 2001 i.e. after 27 years of the issuance of the circular, which shows that he was also born in the year 1977. The petitioners, who appeared to be unemployed persons, whose fathers were railway servants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, for the first time, in the year 1998 claiming appointment under loyal quota pursuant to circular dated 18.5.1974. Since the petitioners approached after more than 24-25 years, the learned Tribunal declined to grant relief on the ground that the same is not maintainable.;