Inordinate and unexplained delay bars a service claim; subsequent representations cannot revive a stale cause of action.

The applicant, holding B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Chemistry and a B.Ed., participated in the respondents’ selection process for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) pursuant to the notification dated 5 July 2019. She was placed third in the select list.

However, by order dated 19 August 2021, her request for appointment was rejected on the ground that she had not studied Malayalam, the prescribed regional language, up to the requisite level under the applicable Recruitment Rules/notification.

The applicant contended that she possessed knowledge of Malayalam, evidenced by an A+ certificate, and that denial of appointment on the basis of the language requirement was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

She also asserted that the relevant vacancy remained unfilled.

She filed the Original Application in April 2024 and sought condonation of a stated delay of 611 days, attributing the delay principally to the COVID-19 pandemic and the disruption of access to legal remedies.

The respondents opposed the application, contending that the delay was unexplained and that repeated representations did not extend limitation.

They further submitted that possession of a language certificate could not substitute the mandatory educational qualification prescribed by the Recruitment Rules.

1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the Original Application challenging the order dated 19 August 2021?

2. Whether the applicant’s subsequent representations and their rejection furnished a fresh cause of action or revived the limitation period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment despite not possessing the prescribed qualification relating to study of Malayalam?

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which requires an Original Application to be filed within the prescribed period and permits condonation only where sufficient cause is established.

It applied the doctrine of delay and laches, under which stale and unexplained claims are not ordinarily entertained.

Relying on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, 2009 INSC 1288, the Tribunal held that consideration or rejection of a belated representation does not create a fresh cause of action or revive a time-barred claim.

It also relied on The Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalitha, 2025 INSC 565, which recognised that the relevance of a representation depends on the governing service rules, the timing of the representation, and whether the claim is live or stale.

The governing principle was that the law assists vigilant litigants and does not permit a stale cause of action to be kept alive indefinitely through successive representations.

The Tribunal treated the order dated 19 August 2021 as the original cause of action.

Although the applicant attributed the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic and relied on her representations dated 13 March 2020 and 19 July 2021, the Tribunal found that she had approached it nearly four years after the impugned order and had not furnished a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent representation and its rejection could not revive a stale claim or extend limitation under the principles in M.K. Sarkar.

It further found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.

Since the application was barred by limitation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive challenge concerning the Malayalam qualification or the applicant’s alleged entitlement to appointment.

Accordingly, MA/310/00572/2025 was dismissed, and the accompanying unnumbered Original Application was also dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Registry was directed to number the Original Application for record purposes.

There was no order as to costs.