AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 31.08.2026 passed in pending O.A./2675/2025, present review application filed to the extent it takes the amended O.A. and introduced a challenge to seniority list dated 23.04.2021, without first deciding the pending application under section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in bringing the challenge to seniority list dated 23.04.2021, has been filed by original respondent nos. 3 to 7 in the O.A./2675/2025.
The ground for review of order dated 31.08.2026 in pending O.A./2675/2025 that the Tribunal did not deal with objections raised by the Registry to application vide Diary no.8016/2026 for amendment, challenging seniority list dated 23.04.2021 and without dealing with delay of 1538 days in challenge made to seniority list dated 23.04.2021, allowed the amendment on ground that same will not change the nature of the O.A. The challenge to the seniority list dated 23.04.2021, introduced for the first time by the very amendment and allowed the stale claim, without sufficient cause, caused prejudice to respondent nos. 3 to 7. There is no apparent error in the impugned order dated 31.08.2026 to consider material on record and the matter be heard on condonation of delay in challenging the seniority list dated 23.04.2021.
We have carefully gone through the pleadings on record including O.A./2675/2025, M.A./2979/2025 – application for condonation of delay in filing O.A. and M.A. vide diary no. 8016/2026 in the O.A. to condone delay in filing the O.A. as seniority list dated 23.04.2021 brought on record for first time by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and order dated 13.04.2026, condoned the delay in challenging the seniority lists of years 2021, 2023 and 2025 in the present O.A.
The fact of the matter, the original applicants in the O.A./non-applicants in the present Review Application has filed the O.A./2675/2025 challenging seniority list dated 24.03.2022, 01.01.2023 and dated 17.03.2025 and implement law laid down in case of Raman Kumar Prajapat vs. Union of India in O.A./748/2021 passed by Mumbai Bench.
M.A./2979/2025 – application for condonation of delay was taken up and notice was issued. The applicants in present Review Application as well as original official respondents filed the reply dated 08.01.2026 stating to a provisional seniority list dated 01.01.2020 issued inviting objections, thereafter final seniority list dated 23.04.2021 was issued. The other seniority lists impugned in the O.A. are based on seniority list dated 23.04.2021.
Present review applicants/original respondent nos. 3 to 7 and official respondents were heard on 13.04.2026 in M.A./2979/2025 – application for condonation of delay in the O.A.
The original respondents raised the ground that seniority list was finalized in year 2021, i.e., 23.04.2016 and subsequent impugned seniority lists are continuation of seniority list of year 2021. The DB vide order dated 13.04.2026 in the present O.A., taken note of seniority list of year 2021 and Para 24 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579, on the point of delay in approaching the Court in challenging a seniority list.
Order dated 13.04.2026 passed in M.A./2979/2025 is reproduced for ready reference as under:-
“M.A. No.2979/2025 in O.A. No.2675/2025 (Condonation of delay)
Heard Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The instant MA has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying OA.
In the OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(i)Call for the records of official respondents dealing with impugned seniority list;
(ii)Hold and declare the seniority list dated 24.3.2022,1-1-23 and seniority list dated 17.3.2025 [Annexure-A1(colly) Impugned] so far the official respondents No.1 & 2 have placed the names of the persons in the wait list above the names of applicants, who belong to the main select list, as arbitrary, illegal and void ab initio.
(iii)Hold and declare that non-implementation of the ratio of the order/judgement dated 26.9.2024 in OA No.748/2021 titled "Raman Kumar Prajapat Vs Union of India" (Annexure-A-2), passed by Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal at Mumbai, in case of the applicants as arbitrary, discriminatory and per-se illegal;
(iv)Consequently, quash and set aside the seniority list dated 1-1-2023, 24.3.2022 and seniority list dated 17.3.2025 [Annexure-A-1(colly) Impugned] and all or any other such seniority list whereby the respondents No.1 & 2 have placed the wait list candidates above the candidates of the main list with all consequential benefits.
(v)Also hold and declare that the applicants are entitled and eligible for promotion from and prior to the date of the promotion of the candidates from the wait list, including the respondents No.3 to 7 herein;
(vi)Also hold and direct that the applicants are entitled for the benefit of the ratio of judgement of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 26.9.2024 in ?? No.748/2021 titled "Raman Kumar Prajapat Vs Union of India";
(vii)As a consequence of the prayers in paras 1(i) to (vi) above, direct the official respondents above to conduct review DPC for consideration of the names of the applicants herein in accordance with the law and further order promotion of the applicants from the date of their juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits i.e., seniority, eligibility for the higher post, arrears of pay and any other due service benefits;
(viii)Award exemplary cost against the official respondents and in favour of the Applicants;
(ix)The Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass any further order/orders as may be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
It is the contention of Mr. R. V. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, that the principal relief in the OA pertains to implementation of the judgment and order dated 26.09.2024 passed in O.A. No.748/2021 titled Raman Kumar Prajapat & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai.
It is further submitted that, in contravention of the aforesaid decision, the respondents have issued seniority lists dated 24.03.2022, 01.01.2023, and 17.03.2025.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Arvind Rai & Ors., reported as (2022) 12 SCC 579, particularly paragraph 24 thereof, and submits that the delay deserves to be condoned.
Per contra, Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, submits that the seniority list was finalized in the year 2021 and the applicant has not challenged the same. It is further submitted that the subsequent seniority lists are only in continuation of the seniority list of 2021. However, he fairly submits that these objections may be considered at the time of the hearing of the O.A. on merits.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 24 of Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra), has observed as under:
"24.We may now discuss the law on the point regarding delay in approaching the court and in particular challenge to a seniority list. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa (supra). Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., after considering the question of entertaining the petition despite long standing seniority filed at a belated stage discussed more than a dozen cases on the point including Constitution Bench judgments and ultimately in paragraph 30 observed that a seniority list which remains in existence for more than three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. It is also recorded in paragraph 30 that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. Paragraph 30 is reproduced below: -
“30.Thus in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.”
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a period of three to four years is a reasonable time for challenging a seniority list, and in case of delay beyond the said period, the applicant is required to satisfy the delay in the present case.
In the present case, the applicant has challenged the seniority lists of the years 2021, 2023, and 2025, and the O.A. has been filed on 20.03.2025.
In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the delay deserves to be condoned. Hence, the same is condoned.
Accordingly, the MA stands disposed of.
O.A. No.2675/2025
Stand over to 09.07.2026.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Vide order dated 13.04.2026, this Tribunal while considering M.A./2979/2025, in application for condonation of delay in filing the O.A./2675/2025 has already specifically taken note of the fact and ground raised in this Review Application that the present case, the applicant has challenged the seniority lists of year 2021, 2023 and 2025 and O.A. has been filed on 20.03.2025 and condoned the delay in filing the O.A. and allowed the M.A./2979/2025.
This Tribunal has already granted reasonable opportunities of hearing to learned counsel for review applicants and passed detail order dated 13.04.2026 condoning the delay in challenging the seniority list of year 2021, i.e., 23.04.2016. On the same ground, present R.A. has been filed. In garb of present review application against interim order dated 31.08.2026 (Annexure RA-1), whereby M.A. filed vide diary no. 8016/2026, raising objection by Registry regarding delay in filing the M.A. to take on record the amended O.A., has been allowed.
The ground taken in the present Review Application regarding delay in filing the present O.A. challenging seniority list of year 2021, i.e., 23.04.2021 has already been considered by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026, as extracted in preceding paragraph. Thereafter, delay condoned in filing the present O.A. against seniority list dated 23.04.2021. The Review Applicants intend to re-open the entire matter once again.
The power of this Tribunal to review its own interim order in question is limited and Hob’ble Supreme Court in case of Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra, ACR 2002 SC 2537. Their Lordships held that, “the power of Tribunal to review its own order is limited. Tribunal could only interfere in the matter if the error pointed out is plain and apparent.”
In case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta, reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735. Their Lordships in paragraph 35 have called out principles for a review of own order and held that, “an error which is not self evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f) and an erroneous order cannot be corrected in guise of exercise of power of review.” Their Lordships in paragraph 35 (vii) also held that, “while considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. So also Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review.”
For all the reasons stated herein above, there is no error apparent on the face of record in order dated 31.08.2026 passed in pending O.A./2675/2025 and in our considered opinion, no interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction is warranted.
Resultantly, the Review Application assailing order dated 31.08.2026 in O.A./2675/2025 is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.