Mere submission of representations does not extend the statutory limitation period for challenging cancellation of appointment.

The applicant, while serving as an Inspector in the Income Tax Department (joined 12.11.2015), qualified for the post of Assistant Section Officer (ASO) in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) through the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2015

The MEA issued an offer of appointment on 31.08.2016, granting 45 days for acceptance

Although the applicant requested an extension via email on 14.10.2016, he did not formally accept the offer or diligently pursue technical resignation from his parent department until 19.12.2017—over a year after the offer was issued

Consequently, the MEA issued an order on 15.05.2018 cancelling the offer of appointment

The applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) on 16.11.2024, approximately 5.5 years after the cancellation order, accompanied by a Miscellaneous Application (MA) to condone a delay of 1650 days

1. Whether the delay of 1650 days in filing the Original Application should be condoned under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether the applicant's failure to join the post within the stipulated period, allegedly due to delays by his parent department, entitles him to seek the setting aside of the cancellation order dated 15.05.2018

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which stipulates that an application must be filed within one year from the date the final order is made

It relied on the precedent in S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. and State of Haryana v. Miss Ajay Walia, which establish that repeated representations do not furnish a fresh cause of action or extend the limitation period

The court further cited Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India, affirming that "delay defeats equity" and the law assists the vigilant, not the indolent

Finally, it applied D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India, which mandates that the Tribunal must first examine the issue of limitation before admitting an application

The Tribunal determined that the cause of action arose on 15.05.2018 upon the issuance of the cancellation order, meaning the statutory period for filing the OA expired on 15.05.2019

The applicant’s filing on 16.11.2024 represented a delay of 5 years and 6 months

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the delay was due to "miscommunication" or the fault of the parent department, noting that the applicant failed to implead the parent department (CBDT) as a necessary party and failed to pursue legal remedies when the NOC was allegedly withheld

Referencing The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others (2025), the Tribunal noted that representations do not extend the limitation period and that appointment matters do not constitute a recurring cause of action

The Tribunal found the applicant's conduct indolent, as he forfeited his rights by remaining silent for years after the cancellation

The court held that no "sufficient cause" was shown to justify the 1650-day delay and that the OA was also devoid of merit, as the right to appointment had been extinguished by the applicant's failure to act within the prescribed timeframes

All pending MAs were disposed of with no costs