Kumar Jai vs The Union Of India

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The petitioner, a person with 40% disability holding a Diploma in Cinematography, applied for the post of Cameraman Grade-II under a Special Recruitment Drive for Persons with Disabilities pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2015 issued by Prasar Bharti. After appearing in the examination, his candidature was rejected vide order dated 05.10.2016 on the ground of non-fulfillment of the essential qualification of possessing a degree in cinematography. The petitioner challenged this rejection promptly before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No. 7 of 2017, which was transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi, re-registered, and ultimately withdrawn on 20.09.2023 with liberty to file fresh proceedings.

A fresh Original Application No. 158 of 2024 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 29.05.2024 on the ground of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The writ petition filed before the Patna High Court challenging this dismissal was also dismissed on 06.02.2025 on the ground of limitation, as the reviewing court had not been apprised of the material facts showing continuous prosecution of the remedy by the petitioner since 2016.

The present Civil Review No. 110 of 2025 was filed on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, contending that the material facts reflecting the petitioner's continuous litigation before the Tribunal were available on record and even reflected in the respondents' pleadings but were not brought to the Court's notice at the time of hearing of the writ petition, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice to a disabled candidate who had been declared successful in the examination.

Catchwords: review jurisdiction error apparent on face of record limitation Administrative Tribunals Act Special Recruitment Drive Persons with Disabilities Cameraman Grade-II Prasar Bharti diploma equivalence continuous cause of action service law writ jurisdiction