Unchallenged delay condonation precludes the "fence-sitter" defense, particularly for candidates with physical disabilities.

The Respondent applied for the post of Postal Sorting Assistant, which required a 10+2 qualification with English as a compulsory subject.

The Union (Petitioners) rejected his application, alleging misrepresentation because his mark sheet showed he passed English as an additional subject rather than as part of the initial 10+2 curriculum.

The CAT quashed the rejection and ordered his appointment, relying on a Division Bench precedent in SCA No. 10463 of 2015, which dealt with similarly situated applicants.

The Union filed the present writ petition, contending that the Respondent lacked the requisite qualifications and was a "fence sitter" who only approached the court after others had succeeded.

1. Whether the Respondent’s qualification (passing English as an additional subject) met the eligibility criteria for the post of Postal Sorting Assistant.

2. Whether the Respondent should be denied relief on the ground of being a "fence sitter" due to the delay in approaching the Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle of Stare Decisis, following the precedent set by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 10463 of 2015, which held that passing English as an additional subject fulfills the 10+2 English requirement.

The Court relied on the national legislative policy regarding the empowerment and reservation for persons with physical disabilities.

The Court applied the principle of finality regarding procedural orders, noting that an unchallenged order condoning delay cannot be re-agitated.

The Court first addressed the merit of the qualification, noting that the issue was no longer res integra as it had been conclusively settled in favor of candidates in the earlier round of litigation (SCA No. 10463 of 2015).

Regarding the "fence sitter" argument, the Court emphasized that the Respondent is physically handicapped and observed that national policy encourages the employment of disabled persons; therefore, technicalities like the "fence sitter" principle should not be applied stricto sensu.

The Court noted that the CAT had already exercised its discretion to condone the delay in filing the original application and since the Union did not challenge that specific order of condonation, it attained finality and could not be used as a ground to repel the claim in the present writ petition.

The Court upheld the CAT's direction to provide the Respondent with an order of appointment.