Limitation for challenging appointment of direct recruits runs from date of appointment, not seniority list issuance.

The Petitioner, promoted to Divisional Officer (Fire) in the Delhi Fire Service (DFS) on 29.07.2013,

challenged the final seniority list dated 17.02.2016 which placed him below Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

These respondents were direct recruits appointed via UPSC on 02.09.2013.

The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1614/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking to quash the seniority list and the appointments of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, alleging they lacked the statutory five-year experience required by Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 30.05.2018.

During the High Court proceedings on 22.05.2019, the Petitioner’s counsel stated they were not challenging the Tribunal's findings on seniority, limiting the contest to the eligibility of the private respondents.

1. Whether the Petitioner is precluded from challenging the seniority list following the statement made before the Court on 22.05.2019

2. Whether the challenge to the appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on grounds of ineligibility was barred by limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act

The Court applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within one year from the date the cause of action (the final order) arises, unless sufficient cause for delay is shown.

The Court also relied on the principle established in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India, which governs the determination of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits based on the "recruitment year" rather than the date of joining.

Additionally, the Court noted that judicial review of technical eligibility determined by expert bodies like the UPSC is limited.

The Court found that the scope of the writ petition was significantly narrowed by the Petitioner’s own voluntary statement on 22.05.2019, where he expressly gave up the challenge to the seniority findings.

Regarding the remaining issue of eligibility, the Court determined that the Cause of Action arose at the time of the respondents' appointment in September 2013.

Since the Petitioner approached the Tribunal only in May 2016, the challenge was delayed by nearly three years, violating the strict one-year limitation period under Section 21 of the AT Act.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the limitation should run from the 2016 seniority list, holding that a challenge to the foundational act (appointment) cannot be revived by a subsequent consequential act (seniority fixation).

The Court held that the challenge to the seniority list was foreclosed by the Petitioner's previous waiver and the challenge to the appointments was legally barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

No grounds for interference under Article 226 were found.