IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.815 of 2002 Date of decision: 15.7.2008 Ranjeet Singh Berry. Petitioners Versus Union of India & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? . For the petitioner: Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Addl. Solicitor General of India. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The petitioner, by means of the writ petition, has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the Original Application filed by him. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an employee of the Telecommunication Department. He, at the relevant time, was working as a Senior Telecommunication Operating Assistant. He was due for promotion as Junior Accounts Officer. Promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Officer is made on the basis of qualifying a written test consisting of four papers. Up to the year 1997, there was a relaxation in favour of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. All general category candidates were required to clear all the four papers of the test and were further required to get 45% marks in the aggregate and in the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Candidates, there was a relaxation and the norms were relaxed to the extent that they were required to pass in only Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? three papers out of the four papers though the aggregate marks needed in all the four papers was to remain at 45%. The relaxation made in favour of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates was withdrawn vide DOPT order dated 27.7.1997. The examination in question was held in September, 1997 and the result was declared on 2.1.1998. The petitioner, thereafter made certain representations to the Department and then moved the National Commission for Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes at Chandigarh. An order was passed by the National Commission on 27.9.2000 and the Original Application in question was filed on 11.2.2001. The petitioner claims parity with another employee Manjeet Kaur, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. She had also appeared in the same examination and had not cleared one of the papers. She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that the notification dated 22.7.1997, whereby the relaxation in favour of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates was withdrawn, was not applicable to her case since the examination was scheduled to have taken place in the year 1996. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted her claim and allowed her Original Application. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Tribunal on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner had not approached the Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The second ground of rejection was that the decision in Manjeet Kaur’s case was contrary to the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India & others 1992 Supp.(3) Supreme Court Cases 215 wherein in para 831, it was held as follows: ”….However, it would not be permissible to prescribe lower qualifying marks or a lesser level of evaluation for the members of reserved categories since that would compromise the efficiency of administration. We reiterate that while it may be permissible to prescribe a reasonably lesser qualifying marks or evaluation for the OBCs, SCs and STS – consistent with the efficiency of administration and the nature of duties attaching to the office concerned – in the matter of direct recruitment, such a course would not be permissible in the matter of promotions for the reasons recorded hereinabove.” The order of the Tribunal is under challenge in this petition. We have heard Shri Surinder Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the application was not within limitation. It was also urged that once a co-ordinate Bench of the Administrative Tribunal had decided an identical matter in favour of the employee, the second Bench of the same Tribunal should have taken the same view. In the alternative, it is urged that if the second Bench wanted to disagree with the earlier Bench, the appropriate course would have been to refer the matter to a larger Bench. As far as the limitation is concerned, Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act reads as follows: “21. Limitation (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application.- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.” A bare reading of the Section makes it amply clear that the limitation to file an application is one year to be reckoned from the date the cause of the action accrues. The Section, however, further provides that in case a representation is made and no decision on the representation is taken, the period can be extended by six months. In cases where statutory appeal is provided the limitation will run after the appellate order is passed. In the present case, the petitioner is trying to take the benefit of the order passed by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Chandigarh. The employee has approached the National Commission outside the provisions of service law. This is a remedy, if available, not under the service law but under some other law. We are, not deciding the question whether an employee can approach the said Commission. Section 21 of the Act does not envisage a representation to the Commission and therefore an order passed by the Commission would not extend the period of limitation. The cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner on 2.1.1998. The Original Application was filed more than 3 years later. This was obviously barred by limitation. Even on merits, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have already quoted the observations of the apex Court in Indra Sawhney’s case (supra). These observations clearly show that it was impermissible to compromise the efficiency and lower the qualifying marks in the departmental examination. It was in the light of this judgment that the relaxation in the norms was withdrawn. The earlier Bench deciding the Manjeet Kaur’s case had not taken into consideration the law laid by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indira Sawhaney’s case (supra), therefore, the subsequent Bench of the Administrative Tribunal rightly held that the judgment in Manjeet Kaur’s case was per incurian and is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney’s case and, therefore, not binding upon them. The law is clear there that there can be no relaxation in the norms relating to the department examinations in favour of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta),J. 15th July, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)