THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.24364 OF 2009 Dt.11.11.2009 Between: R.Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.24364 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioner filed O.A.(SR).No.1917 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, questioning the order of the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, 2nd respondent herein, rejecting his representation dated 27.6.2007. Questioning the said rejection order dated 4.7.2007, the petitioner has to approach the Tribunal within one year from the date of the order i.e., on or before 4.7.2008. But the petitioner has approached the Tribunal in August, 2009 with an application to condone the delay of 395 days in filing the said O.A. Admittedly, there is a delay of 395 days in filing O.A.SR. No.1917 of 2009 and therefore the petitioner filed an application in M.A.No.358 of 2009 under Rule 8(4) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking to condone the delay 395 days in filing the O.A. on the ground that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but only beyond his control due to referring the matter to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi under Right to Information Act, 2005 as the 2nd respondent has failed to furnish certain documents regarding selection committee. However, the perusal of the papers does not disclose any correspondence with the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner applied for the post of Tech. Gr.III(SM) against LDCE quota in response to the notification issued by the respondents dated 16.5.2005. It is the contention that the petitioner had appeared in the written test and passed successfully and came to know that he got 2nd place in the merit order. But, in the final list published by Personal Branch, the petitioner was placed at 11th position. Thereafter, his name was deleted from the final selection list containing 9 names published by Personal Branch vide letter dated 5.5.2006. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 27.6.2007 ventilating his grievance which was disposed of by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 4.7.2007. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.SR.No.1917 of 2009 along with M.A.No.358 of 2009 seeking to condone the delay of 395 days. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the selection of the petitioner in response to the notification issued by the respondents dated 16.5.2005. But, we are concerned only with regard to the delay in approaching the Tribunal. An aggrieved person has to approach the Tribunal within one year from the date of the order impugned. The reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay are reproduced as hereunder: “I submit that there is delay of 395 days as on 3.8.3009 in filing the said O.A. due to the said matter has been referred to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, under RTI Act 2005 as the R2 failed to furnish certain documents asked regarding selection committee. The said committee registered a case against R2 and informed me in his letter dated 31.7.2008. Therefore there is a delay in approaching this Hon’ble Tribunal which is neither wilful nor wanton, it is only beyond my control.” The reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit in para 2 are vague and general, but not specific. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been shown for not making the application within the prescribed time and the delay of 395 days has not at all been explained properly. We do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the application. However, we are of the opinion that if the petitioner files a fresh O.A., by filing a better affidavit explaining the delay showing sufficient cause, the Tribunal may consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observation. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 11.11.2009 kpr