- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), whereby Original Application No.128/2005,filed by petitioner, has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that applicant was selected on the post of E.S.M. Grade-III, in pursuance of Advertisement No.1/96, after passing written test and interview and his name finds place at S.No.47 in the select list. Appointment letter was sent to him, but he did not report. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent to him, but he failed to report. It appears that thereafter the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondents, firstly in the year 1998 to the effect that he was selected on the post of E.S.M. Grade-III but he has not received the appointment order, therefore, the same be supplied to him and he may be allowed to join on his post. The respondents, vide letter dated 18.09.1998, informed the applicant that his appointment order was sent at the address, furnished by him and thereafter, a reminder was also sent, but he has not reported, therefore, it is not possible to allow the applicant to join the post now. It was also informed that term of panel was only one year, which has also been expired. The petitioner, thereafter again gave a representation to the respondents and again an enquiry was made in the matter and ultimately, the representation of petitioner was rejected in 2004. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Original Application in the year 2005, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order impugned dated 18.02.2009, on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was duly selected and appointment order was also issued in favour of petitioner, but the same was not served upon him, therefore, he could not join the post. He submitted that petitioner was not at fault in joining the post, therefore, it was a duty of the respondents to allow him to join the post, when he made a request to the respondents in the year 1998. So far as rejection of request of petitioner in the year 1998 by the respondents is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner again made a representation and an enquiry was made by the respondents, which is clear from the correspondence placed on record, therefore, he approached the Court in time, his representation was rejected in 2004, he filed Original Application, immediately in the year 2005, therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality in rejecting his Original Application on the ground of delay.;