- (1.) WHEN the W. P. C. T. No. 337 of 2011 is taken up for hearing, it is suggested that W. P. C. T. No. 338 of 2011 is to be taken up for analogous hearing as similar questions of law and facts are involved in these two matters.
(2.) THEREFORE, by consent of the respective parties and at their suggestion, we take up both the applications together for consideration. There was a selection for the post of Apprentice Mechanics (Inter-stage), Mechanical Cadre in Chittaranjan Locomotive Works. The writ petitioners participated in such selection process, but they were not selected. A panel was prepared on February 12, 2008. The selected persons were permitted to join in their promotion posts. One Shridip Misra filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 2005'), inter alia, asking for the marks obtained by the candidates in the said selection process. It was disclosed to the said applicant on April 4, 2010. The Original Application No. 774 of 2010 was filed on March 23, 2010 challenging the result of the selection process. The Original Application No. 1257 of 2009 was filed on September 8, 2009 on the allegation that although the selection was made on February 12, 2008, only sometime in August, 2009 the petitioners came to learn that they were unjustly eliminated.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in both the original applications, there was neither any averment explaining the delay nor any application for condonation of delay was filed in connection with the said original applications. Under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1985), the period of limitation for challenging the final order is one year. However, power was reserved with the tribunal for condonation of delay in filing the application on justifiable ground.;