Defects in filing are not re-filing delays if the Registry fails to communicate them to Counsel.

The Petitioner originally filed OA 3689/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was disposed of on 23 June 2021 with directions to the UPSC to exercise discretion under Rule 15 of the Ministry of Statistical Services Examination Rules, 2015, in favor of Physically Handicapped candidates.

The UPSC filed a Review Application (RA 59/2023) via e-mail on 2 December 2021 due to COVID-19 protocols.

The RA remained in the Registry under defects, which UPSC claimed were never communicated to them.

Meanwhile, the Petitioner filed a contempt petition (CP 87/2022).

UPSC eventually cured the defects in April 2023 and filed MA 3097/2025 seeking to list the RA.

The Tribunal allowed the MA on 6 January 2026, directing the RA to be heard on merits.

1. Whether the Review Application was barred by limitation given the delay in filing and curing of Registry defects

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay in re-filing despite the absence of a formal condonation application and alleged lack of communication from the Registry

Rule 5(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandates the Registry to communicate defects in filings to the concerned party.

Supreme Court’s suo motu directions in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC 117, which extended limitation periods for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings until 28 February 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court observed that the RA was filed on 2 December 2021, well within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court.

Regarding the delay in re-filing (curing defects), the Court noted that the UPSC’s assertion—that the Registry failed to communicate the defects—remained unrebutted as the Petitioner did not file a counter-affidavit to the MA.

Under Rule 5(3) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, the clock for curing defects does not start until such communication occurs; thus, there was no legal delay in re-filing.

Furthermore, the Court found the Registry's objections (e.g., lack of limitation application or certified copies) to be factually incorrect or procedurally waived due to the prevailing COVID-19 protocols.

The Court concluded that the fault for the delay lay with the Registry, not the UPSC.

The Court affirmed that because the initial filing was within the pandemic-extended limitation and the Registry failed to notify the respondent of defects, the application could not be dismissed on technical grounds of delay.

The final order sustained the Tribunal's decision to allow MA 3097/2025.