IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14330 CAT of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.09.2009 Jaswinder Singh ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. J.P.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition calls in question an order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby O.A. No. 1051-HR-2004 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed inter alia on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. The Tribunal has taken the view that the impugned selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 made vide order dated 27.1.2000 could have been assailed by the petitioner within a period of one year stipulated for the purpose. But even when respondent No. 3 had pursuant to the said order joined as a Mazdoor on 7.2.2000 no challenge to the appointment was thrown till 22.11.2004 when the petitioner filed an O.A. before the Tribunal which was patently beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal has further held that the fact that petitioner had in the intervening period filed a writ petition in this Court and later on a civil suit, would also be of no help as the writ petition filed in March, 2001 was itself beyond the period of one year stipulated for filing of the petition before the Tribunal. So also the civil suit filed by the petitioner was instituted some time in January, 2002 and the plaint returned to the CWP No. 14330 CAT of 2009 [2] petitioner on 26.08.2004. Even assuming that the period taken by the petitioner in pursuing illegal advised remedy in the Civil Court is excluded from reckoning the O.A. filed by the petitioner in November, 2004 would continue to be clearly barred by limitation. The plea of limitation apart the Tribunal has taken the view that there was no basis for holding that the selection process leading to the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Mazdoor was in any way vitiated by any influence which the father of respondent No.3 wielded as Secretary of the Trade Union. The Tribunal has held that there was nothing on the record to substantiate the allegation that any such influence was ever exercised or had proved effective in earning any appointment for respondentNo.3. Lastly, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner had himself failed to qualify the preliminary test and was not allowed to sit in the final examination implying thereby that he had no locus standi to question the selection of respondent No.3. The eligibility of Respondent No.3 for an appointment, has also been examined by the Tribunal and the challenge based on that ground rejected. There is in our opinion neither any error nor any perversity in the view taken by the Tribunal on the aspects mentioned above to warrant interference in the present writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 24.09.2009 'ravinder'