CWP No.3402 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.3402 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: March 4, 2009 AGASTYA KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. MADAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 15.10.2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide which the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No.6 Sh.Rajesh Bansal was selected through UPSC and was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide offer of appointment dated 7.9.1998, on probation. The probation was for a period of 2 years. Respondent No.6 was also selected by the UPSC as Assistant Executive Engineer (Class-I) and he submitted his resignation from the post of Assistant Engineer Class-II on 3.5.2000. His resignation was accepted by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.5.2000 and respondent No.6 joined as Assistant Engineer Class-I with the CPWD at New Delhi. Subsequently, on 20.7.2000, respondent No.6 submitted an application to the Secretary, Engineering Department, Chandigarh Administration, wherein it was averred that his family circumstances have changed and he is not in a position to continue with his new assignment at New Delhi, therefore, he be permitted to withdraw the resignation from Assistant Engineer, Public Health, Chandigarh CWP No.3402 of 2009 -2- Administration. On 1.8.2000, respondent No.3 accorded approval for withdrawal of resignation submitted by respondent No.6. The petitioner filed a representation challenging the withdrawal of resignation of respondent No.6 on 10.11.2003. As the representation was not decided he filed O.A. No.810/CH/2006 wherein he prayed for quashing of approval granted to respondent No.6 for withdrawal of his resignation. He also prayed that the respondents be restrained from assigning seniority to respondent No.6 over and above the petitioner. The respondents filed reply to the Original Application wherein it was averred that as the permission to withdraw the resignation was granted to respondent No.6 on 1.8.2000, therefore, the Original Application has been filed highly belatedly, i.e. after more than 6 years and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It was also averred that as the applicant was senior to respondent No.6, therefore, he is not effected in any manner and that the seniority list in which respondent No.6 has been shown as senior to the applicant is provisional and has not been finalized, hence the Original Application is premature and is liable to be dismissed. It was further averred that tendering of resignation, its acceptance and subsequent withdrawal was the matter between respondent No.6 and official respondents and the petitioner cannot challenge the same. The Tribunal after hearing the respective parties to the litigation dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner being time barred and on the ground of non-maintainability as well as on merits. It is this order which has been impugned in the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that withdrawal of resignation letter by respondent No.6 and its acceptance by the official CWP No.3402 of 2009 -3- respondents was not in public interest and is liable to be set aside. It has further been averred that the official respondents be restrained from assigning seniority to respondent No.6 over and above the petitioner. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that respondent No.6 Rajesh Bansal had initially submitted his resignation and as his family circumstances changed, therefore, he withdrew the same. The tendering of his resignation by respondent No.6 and its subsequent withdrawal was a matter between the official respondents and respondent No.6 and the petitioner has no concern with the acceptance of the withdrawal of resignation letter by the official respondents. Apart from the above, the resignation submitted by respondent No.6 was allowed to be withdrawn vide order date 1.8.2000, whereas the same has been challenged after an inordinate delay of 6 years. The petitioner did not file any application for condonation of delay. It is a settled proposition of law that repeated representations do not have the effect on condoning the delay as has been held in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as AIR 1990 SC 10. Moreover the petitioner has already superannuated on 31.12.2006, and he cannot get any advantage of any seniority list having been issued thereafter. As far as the question of challenging the earlier seniority list is concerned, the same was tentative only and not the final seniority list. In view of the above we find no infirmity in the judgement passed by the Tribunal and resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 4, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE