PURAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Assistant Civilian Staff Officer (ACSO) and wants respondents to refer unfilled reserved vacancies of Civil Staff Officer (CSO) to UPSC for holding Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) in which he wanted to participate and qualify. For this, he filed OA No.387/94 which was opposed by respondents on the plea that no such vacancies were liable-to be referred to UPSC for the relevant period.

(2.) It appears that petitioner also filed MA No..3559/94 for directing respondents to communicate the position about unfilled reserved vacancies of SC/ST which was dismissed by order dated 24.10.94. Petitioner claims that Tribunal mistakenly took it to be the dismissal of OA also and consigned it to records. Later its registry discovered the lapse and revived this OA (No.387/94) and posted it on 13.8.1999 at his back and decided it in the absence of parties on merit. He filed review application No.215/99 on 27.10.99 to seek revival of this OA and to be heard but this was also dismissed. He has now filed this petition assailing orders dated 13.8.1999 and 27.10.1999 passed by Tribunal rejecting his request.

(3.) It is noticed that petitioner had filed application for revival of his OA after five years which show that he was grossly negligent in keeping track of his cause and had allowed it to go by. In the circumstances, it becomes difficult to allow this petition and to ask the Tribunal to undertake a fresh exercise to consider petitioner's OA. Moreover, if petitioner still was convinced of his cause, he could re-agitate the matter by taking an appropriate remedy, if so advised, and nothing said or held in dismissed OA No.387/94 shall not come in his way in that case.