Rejected representations on stale matters cannot revive dead claims or furnish a fresh cause of action.

The applicant, a Postman, appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant on 15.09.2013, pursuant to an interim order by the Tribunal.

The results were published on 24.02.2014.

The applicant’s previous challenge (OA No. 1172 of 2013) regarding the same selection was dismissed on 07.04.2016 after the Tribunal opened a sealed cover and found the applicant "unqualified" in the examination.

Between 2014 and 2017, the applicant filed multiple RTI applications seeking marks and answer sheets, which were denied due to the expiration of the one-year preservation period.

In March 2025, the applicant submitted a fresh representation seeking promotion at par with candidates from the 2013 LDCE, which the respondents rejected on 20.05.2025.

The applicant subsequently filed this OA in 2026 challenging the rejection.

1. Whether a representation filed in 2025 regarding a 2013 examination can revive a stale or "dead" claim for the purpose of limitation.

2. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to re-evaluate answer sheets or interfere with the academic findings of an examining body regarding a candidate's qualification status.

The Tribunal applied the principle established in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, holding that replies to representations concerning stale matters do not furnish a fresh cause of action or revive dead claims.

It further relied on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., which mandates that courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets, as they lack expertise in academic matters, and must presume the correctness of key answers.

Additionally, the Tribunal cited Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, which clarified that holding examinations and evaluating scripts is a statutory non-commercial function and does not constitute a "service" to a consumer.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was seeking relief based on a 13-year-old examination process that had already been subject to litigation.

The applicant’s qualification status was previously determined as "unqualified" by the Tribunal in OA 1172/2013 after a physical inspection of the sealed result.

Applying the rule in C. Jacob, the Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's 2025 representation and the subsequent rejection did not create a new cause of action for a matter that became final in 2016.

Furthermore, per the Ran Vijay Singh precedent, the Tribunal refused to entertain the applicant’s request to revisit the answer sheets or marks, emphasizing that judicial interference in examination results leads to uncertainty and confusion in public recruitment.

The Tribunal found the applicant’s attempt to bypass the earlier dismissal of his claim through a fresh representation to be legally impermissible.

The Tribunal answered the issues in the negative, ruling that the applicant is not entitled to the promotion sought.

The OA was dismissed at the admission stage.