Appointment Claims Barred by Res Judicata and Failing to Disclose Sufficient Cause for Extraordinary Delay

The applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange in 1999 for the post of ED Packer, Kaduapada SO

After submitting documents, he challenged the selection process in O.A. No. 582/2000, which was dismissed in 2003

He moved the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 1747/2003, which upheld the dismissal in 2008 but observed that he could be considered for future vacancies if eligible

Respondents considered him for a GDS MC post in 2016 but rejected his candidature for lack of educational qualifications

In 2020, the applicant submitted a representation seeking appointment based on the original 1999 letter and subsequently filed this O.A. in 2022, along with M.A. No. 18/2023 for condonation of delay, citing physical disability, distance, and the Covid-19 pandemic

1. Whether the application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether the present application for appointment to the post of ED Packer is barred by the principles of res judicata

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within one year of a final order or eighteen months from a representation, unless "sufficient cause" for delay is shown

doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a party from re-litigating a grievance that has already been finally adjudicated by a competent court

The Tribunal found that the cause of action arose in 1999, yet the applicant approached the court in 2022, representing an 11-year delay since the High Court's 2008 order

The Tribunal rejected the grounds for delay—handicap and distance—noting that these factors did not prevent the applicant from pursuing previous litigations (O.A., Contempt, and Writ petitions) during the same period

Regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, the court noted a lack of explanation for the period prior to 2020 or after normalization

Furthermore, the court observed that the applicant was seeking the exact relief (appointment to the post of ED Packer, Kaduapada SO) that had been previously adjudicated and dismissed by both the Tribunal in 2003 and the High Court in 2008, thus attracting the bar of res judicata

The O.A. and all pending MAs were dismissed; although the Tribunal considered the case fit for the imposition of litigation costs, it refrained from doing so after considering the applicant’s status