CW 3360/99 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3360/99 Ajay Kumar Vaishnav Versus UOI & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 31/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Arun Sharma for Mr. S.K. Awasthi, for petitioner Mr. Sushil Sharma, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order Ann.18 dated 24th December, 1997 passed by Western Railway Sports Association with regard to his appointment against Sports quota. Notices were issued by this court. Despite service, reply to the writ petition has not been filed by respondents. But preliminary objection has been raised today before this court that the order assailed in the petition, is appealable under the provisions of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable. Counsel for petitioner submits that whatever legal advice extended to his client, he has availed the same by filing instant petition. If remedy now lies with regard to dispute raised before the Tribunal under the Act, 1985, he may be permitted to avail the said remedy. But, since limitation by passage of time has expired that will come in his way in availing the said remedy available to him under Act, 1985. It is true that if petitioner should have been properly advised, the remedy was available CW 3360/99 [2] to him under the provisions of the Act, 1985 itself. But anyhow under the legal advice extended to him, he has approached this court and petition remained pending for last about 10 years. But looking to the facts of the case, fault does not lie with the petitioner and he availed the remedy as per legal advice at the relevant point of time extended to him. It will be appropriate if application is filed by petitioner u/s.5 for seeking condonation of delay, it is expected from Tribunal to consider the same objectively about the fact that petition filed in this court remained pending for sufficient long time while entertaining appeal if any is preferred by him. In view of availability of remedy of appeal to petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1985, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if appeal is preferred as observed above, the Tribunal may consider and take note of the same objectively while examining his application seeking condonation of delay. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA3360CW1999 31-3.doc