RTI inquiries do not justify inordinate delay, and recruitment eligibility must strictly satisfy corrigendum-amended essential qualifications.

The applicant applied for the post of Junior Hindi Translator and allied posts through an examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC)

After the final results were declared on 27.03.2012, the applicant failed to secure a recommendation for appointment

Seeking relief, the applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) in 2016, along with a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking condonation of a 1154-day delay in filing

The applicant contended that she secured higher marks than selected candidates and that vacancies remained unfilled, claiming the delay was due to time spent gathering information via the Right to Information (RTI) Act

The respondents opposed the OA, asserting that the applicant failed to meet the cut-off for certain preferences and lacked mandatory essential qualifications for others as per revised corrigenda

1. Whether the applicant demonstrated "sufficient cause" under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to condone an inordinate delay of 1154 days

2. Whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria and cut-off marks for Post Preference ‘B’ and Post Preference ‘D’

The court primarily applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that applications must be filed within one year of a final order or after six months of a pending representation, allowing for condonation only upon proof of "sufficient cause"

It further relied on the principle that recruitment must strictly adhere to the Recruitment Rules and subsequent Corrigenda issued by the examining body, which form the binding framework for eligibility and selection

Finally, the court noted that information obtained under the RTI Act does not substitute for substantive documentary evidence required to establish a legal claim

Regarding the limitation, the Tribunal found that a delay of over three years (1154 days) was substantial and that pursuing RTI queries did not constitute a "sufficient cause" to bypass the statutory limitation period under Section 21 of the Act

On the merits, the Tribunal observed that for Post Preference ‘B’, the applicant scored 296.50 marks, which was below the cut-off of 310.25 marks

Regarding Post Preference ‘D’, the Tribunal noted that while the initial notice used the word "OR" between qualification requirements, a corrigendum dated 24.03.2012 replaced it with "AND"

This made it mandatory for candidates to possess both a translation diploma/certificate and two years of experience; the applicant failed to satisfy both criteria

The Tribunal concluded that the SSC's actions were transparent, followed the prescribed rules, and were not arbitrary

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed both on the grounds of limitation and on merits, as the applicant did not meet the requisite cut-off marks or the essential qualifications defined in the Recruitment Rules and corrigenda

No costs were awarded