Repeated Representations Do Not Extend Limitation or Create a Recurring Cause of Action for Challenging Promotion Dates

The applicant, appointed as a Constable in 1979 under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, belongs to the 'Bawaria' community.

He was promoted to Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector under the ST quota in 1985 and 1996 respectively.

In 2005, his promotion to Sub-Inspector (SI) was withheld pending a determination of his category status.

On 13.03.2008, the Commissioner of Police clarified that 'Bawaria' falls under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category in Delhi; consequently, the applicant’s category was revised and he was promoted to SI in 2009/2010 under the SC category.

In 2017, the applicant filed this OA seeking antedated promotion from 2005 (or 2008, when his juniors were promoted) on the grounds of parity and continuing cause of action.

1. Whether the delay of approximately 7-12 years in challenging the promotion orders and seeking antedated seniority can be condoned.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim antedated promotion based on the fact that juniors from the same community were granted earlier promotion under an erroneous category.

The Tribunal primarily applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding limitation for filing applications.

It relied on the precedent set in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1990 SC 10], which established that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation.

Principles from Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745] and I.C.A.R. v. T.K. Surayanarayan were applied to establish that Article 14 does not envisage "negative equality"—meaning an illegality or error committed in favor of one person cannot be used as a ground to claim parity by others.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide "sufficient cause" for the long delay in approaching the forum, tinging the claim as stale.

On the merits, the Tribunal observed that the 'Bawaria' community is not an ST category; therefore, the applicant's prior ST-based claims were legally untenable.

The Tribunal reasoned that while some juniors may have received promotions earlier due to incorrect category application (ST instead of SC), the applicant could not demand the same erroneous treatment as a matter of right.

Since the respondents had corrected the applicant’s category to SC in 2008 and promoted him thereafter in accordance with the correct seniority and rules, there was no administrative arbitrariness.

Consequently, OA No. 3532/2017 was dismissed as being both barred by limitation and devoid of merit.

The holding affirms that parity cannot be sought on the basis of an illegality and that timely challenge is essential in service matters involving seniority and promotion.

No order as to costs was made.