Technicalities must not impede merit-based adjudication of substantial issues involving long-term debarment.

The applicant, a candidate of the Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSL) Examination, 2019, filed an Original Application (OA) seeking the extension of benefits from a previous Tribunal order dated 14.02.2023 in Himanshi v. SSC & Ors. (O.A. No. 2953/2022).

The applicant’s candidature had been cancelled and he was debarred for a period of seven years following a show-cause notice.

A Miscellaneous Application (MA) was filed seeking condonation of a 482-day delay in filing the OA.

The applicant contended the delay occurred because he was abroad on a student visa and only approached the Tribunal upon gaining knowledge of the relevant court order.

The respondent opposed the MA, arguing the applicant was a "fence-sitter" and failed to explain the delay for the entire period.

Whether a delay of 482 days in filing the Original Application ought to be condoned on the grounds of parity and the substantial nature of the grievance.

while benefits of a judgment in rem should be extended to similarly situated persons, "fence-sitters" may be barred by laches and acquiescence

"sufficient cause" must cover the entire period of delay

substantial justice should prevail over technicalities

The Tribunal examined the nature of the applicant's grievance, noting that a seven-year debarment is a "substantial issue" that warrants adjudication on merits rather than dismissal on technical grounds.

Although the respondent argued the Himanshi judgment was in personam and the applicant had failed to provide a day-to-day explanation for the 482-day delay, the Tribunal relied on the principle of parity.

The Tribunal concluded that technicalities should not prevent the court from deciding a matter involving a significant penalty such as long-term debarment.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file a reply to the OA within two weeks and scheduled the matter for a hearing on 25.05.2026.