A. Cuttack Christian Education Board v. Sri Prafulla Kumar Sahoo & Ors.

Case Number: W.A. No. 1220 of 2023
Date of decision: 19th December 2023
Coram: Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi, Justice Murahari Sri Raman

Christ Collegiate School being a minority educational institution, the employees are subject
to the Rules of Business appended to the Constitution of Cuttack Christian Education Board.

In this case, the appellant has challenged the Judgment dated 02.05.2023 delivered by Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.34817 of 2022 holding that the Secretary, Cuttack Christian Education Board-appellant was not competent to direct the respondent No.1, Headmaster of Christ Collegiate School, Cuttack, to handover charge to Assistant Teacher of the School on 11.10.2022 by putting him under suspension.

The respondent No.1 became the Headmaster in-charge of the School in 2019. The respondent No.1 specifically asserted that Christ Collegiate School, Cuttack is a Minority managed Educational Institution receiving the Grant-in-Aid and the service condition of the employees of the school is governed by the Odisha Education (Minority Managed Aided Educational Institutions Employees Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Order, 2003, and in terms of said Order, 2003, the Managing Committee is competent to take disciplinary action against its employees.

The respondent No.1 further asserted that the Managing Committee of the School was reconstituted as provided under Rule 28(1) of the Odisha Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High School) Rules, 1991 and was approved by the respondent No. 4-District Education Officer, Cuttack, on 16.02.2022, having its tenure for a period of three years. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension as well as the initiation of disciplinary proceeding by the appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

The appellant in the writ petition answered the stand of the respondent No.1 by refuting that there is no basis to say that the Managing Committee was approved under Rule 28(1) of the Rules, 1991 in respect of a minority institution inasmuch as no such notification has been made by the State Government in terms of the proviso to Section 2 of the Odisha Education Act, 1969, to apply any of the provisions of the Act and as per Section 2, the said Act does not apply to educational institution established and administered by minorities having right under Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Thus, the Odisha Education Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder, including the Rules, 1991, do not have any application to the Christ Collegiate School, Cuttack.

The principal grievance of the appellant even though the Single Judge noted that it is not in dispute that the Christ Collegiate School is a minority managed aided educational institution, he proceeded to hold that in absence of a certificate issued by the National Minority Commission, the claim of the appellant that it is a minority institution and that it is competent to take action against the respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. However, applying the provisions contained in the Order, 2003, the Single Judge was pleased to hold that the appellant is not competent to take action against the Headmaster in-charge of the School. It is, in this regard, contended by the appellant- CCEB that while Clause 3(e) of Appendix 8B9, relating to the Rules of Business of the Managing Committee of the Christ Collegiate School appended to the Byelaw or its constitution, authorises the Managing Committee to appoint and terminate the services of members of staff except the Headmaster and to take disciplinary measure against them on the report of the Secretary and the Headmaster, Clause 4(j) empowers the Secretary to appoint, suspend, punish and terminate the service of clerical staff and servants of the School to take disciplinary action against them and to grant leave other than casual leave to such employees in consultation with the Headmaster. So far as the Headmaster of the Christ Collegiate School is concerned, the same has been laid down in Clause 6 under Appendix 8B9.

This Court held that bare reading of Section 10 of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004, it is apparent that any person who desires to establish a Minority Educational Institution may apply to the competent authority for the grant of no objection certificate for the said purpose. In the present case, the parties appearing before the learned Single Judge missed to draw attention to the very basic fact that such a certificate is necessary in respect of Minority Educational Institution which is desired to be established. However, the Christ Collegiate School, Cuttack being already established School by group of people belonging to Christian community in the year 1883, there was no requirement for obtaining such certificate and the status of Minority-run Educational Institution did not cease. The NCMEI Act, 2004, by virtue of Section 1(3) thereof came into force with effect from 11.11.2004. Section 10 thereto employed the expression any person, who desires to establish a Minority Educational Institution, may apply to the competent authority for the grant of no objection certificate. The term ‘desires’ itselfis indicative of circumstance that the establishment of Minority Educational Institution is under contemplation. The expression ‘desires to establish a Minority Educational Institution’ admits of no ambiguity that it is an action of the future, but at no stretch of imagination it can relate to past completed action. Under such eventuality, the application for grant of no objection certificate as required to be made under Section 10 of the NCMEI Act, 2004, is optional, as the use of the word ‘may’ in the expression ‘may apply to the competent authority for the grant of no objection Certificate’ makes it abundantly clear.

This Court further held that in view of decision rendered in St. Catherine Girls High School v. State of Odisha, 2002 (Supp.) OLR 452 the position that emerges is that, there can be no estoppel against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. So merely because the Management has in the past approached the State Government seeking approval, permission etc., such action would not operate to nullify its status as a minority educational institution protected under Article 30(1) of Constitution of India. The constitutional protection of a fundamental right exists forever and cannot be diluted/nullified/ taken away by any act or conduct of any party.

This Court accordingly held that that since the Christ Collegiate School being established in the year 1883 and admitted and conceded by the Respondent No.1 in his writ petition that the School is a Minority-run Educational Institution, and was appointed by the CCEB, the employees including the Headmaster-Respondent No.1, are to abide by Rules of Business appended to the Constitution of the CCEB.

B. Surendranath Sahu & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 10219 of 2016
Date of decision: 3rd August 2023
Coram: Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi, Justice Murahari Sri Raman

Awardee under the Land Acquisition Act cannot challenge acquisition
of land on the ground of non-payment of compensation if he chose to
remain absent despite of notice to receive compensation.

In this case, the petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Basudev Sahu, the recorded owner of the land measuring Ac.0.065 dec. in Plot No. 1884, Khata No. 493 situated at Mouza: Kapilaprasad, which corresponds to Sabik Plot No. 887 in Sabik Khata No. 179 as per the Hal Settlement Record-of-Right. The opposite parties have taken over possession of the land measuring Ac.0.015 dec. out of Ac.0.065 dec. for construction of approach road under the provisions of the LA Act.

The petitioners submitted that in the year 1981, certain private persons filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 55 of 1981 against the father of the petitioners, namely Basudev Sahu before the learned Court of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar, District Puri (now, Khordha) claiming therein their right of easement for having a passage on the portion of land measuring Ac.0.065 dec. The said suit was dismissed on contest on 22.04.1982. The opposite party No. 3-Bhubaneswar Municipality on 29.09.1982 moved with a requisition for acquisition of land, i.e., the land claimed to be belonging to the petitioners (as legal heirs of Basudev Sahu), which was also subject matter of the aforesaid suit, since dismissed on contest, for construction of approach road.

In consideration of the requisition, Notification Nos.28797 and 28798 issued by the Government of Odisha in Revenue Department under Section 4(1) read with sub-sections (1) and (4) of 17 of the LA Act, vide Extraordinary issue of Gazette of Odisha bearing No. 587, dated 19.05.1983. The position and paraphernalia for taking over possession of the land in question continued which stood revised under Section 6 of the LA Act by Revenue Department Declaration No. 31401/R, dated 12.06.1985 published in Extraordinary issue of Odisha Gazette No.890, dated 24.06.1985.

The petitioners have admitted that the land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and compensation has been awarded. However, challenge was laid inter alia on the ground that the acquisition of land is actuated and perpetrated in a high handed manner inasmuch as prior to the acquisition of land residents staying in the vicinity had filed a civil suit against Basudev Sahu, the father of the present petitioners, vide O.S. No. 55 of 1981 claiming right of easement, which came to be dismissed on contest on 22.04.1982. The present proceeding bearing LA Case No. 6 of 1986 was initiated pursuant to the requisition made by the opposite party No.3- Bhubaneswar Municipality which was moved on 29.09.1982. It was asserted by the petitioners that in connection with objection raised before the Land Acquisition Collector, a fact finding enquiry was caused. The concerned Officer on ascertaining whether there exists necessity for construction of approach road for public purposes submitted report indicating that there exists a link road for public purposes and the construction of proposed road would not be necessary.

The opposite parties concluded the land acquisition process and issued a letter on 29.05.2015 seeking police help for eviction of the petitioners after long lapse of time from the date of notification for acquisition of land for construction of approach road. It was alleged that such an action manifestly violates the principle of natural justice and the notification was, therefore, issued in colourable exercise of power.

This Court observed that the father of the petitioners, namely Basudev Sahu, chose to remain absent in spite of notice/intimation for disbursement of compensation amount, as a consequence of which the authority concerned finding no alternative transferred the amount to the Government Treasury and kept in civil deposit. The fact of noncompliance of terms of such notice/intimation by the father of the petitioners remains uncontroverted. Delivery of possession was also taken by the Requisitioning Officer much prior to 01.01.2014. Entire process of land acquisition pertaining to land measuring Ac.0.015 dec. out of total Ac.0.065 dec. in Plot No.1884 under Khata No. 493 of Kapilaprasad Mouza in Puri District (now, Bhubaneswar in Khordha District) was completed in 1990.

This Court further observed that a person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum, what to talk of a Writ Court, as explained by the legal maxim: “allegans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus”. If the petitioners or their father at the right point of time by not taking appropriate step to question the action of the authority concerned have committed a wrong, they cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own wrong.

This Court held that the assertion of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the LA Act is vitiated inasmuch as the compensation amount has not been actually paid to the awardee, as such deeming provision contained in Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act does attract, does not stand to reason and such a contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the awardee, being noticed coupled with subsequent intimation to receive the compensation amount, did not turn up. Finding no alternative the said amount was deposited with the Treasury. Furthermore, fact on record reveals that the authority concerned had taken delivery of possession of the land under consideration much prior to 01.01.2014, i.e., the date of enforcement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

C. M/s. Shree Bharat Motors Ltd. & Anr. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 13736 of 2017 & batch
Date of decision: 15th March 2023
Coram: Former Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Justice Murahari Sri Raman

Tax becomes due under Odisha Entry Tax Act at the very moment when the dealer effects
either purchases or brings scheduled goods into the local area for consumption, use or sale.

In this case, the petitioner No.1-Shree Bharat Motors Ltd., public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by Sri Jay Prakash Didwania, Managing Director of the company questioned the veracity of Assessment Orderpassed by the Assessing Authority (ET), Bhubaneswar-I Circle, Bhubaneswar under Section 9C of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 pertaining to tax periods 01.04.2013 to 31 03.2015 and issue of Notice(s) in Form E-24 prescribed under Rule 10(6)(b) of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999 whereby along with the quantum of deficit tax found in the returns relating to the tax periods from 01.04.2015 to 30.04.2017, the Assessing Authority raised demand(s) of interest @1% per month in terms of Section 7(5), assailed the revised entry tax demand notice issued in Form E-8 by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Bhubaneswar-I Circle, Bhubaneswar for the tax periods from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2015 as upheld vide Annexure-10, i.e., Order dated 24.06.2017 passed in Revision Case No. 30(E)/2017-18 by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha while disposing of revision petition filed at the behest of the petitioner under Section 18 of said Act.

The petitioner also assailed the instructions vide Letter bearing No.9755-Rev-35/59/2017- Rev-CCT/CT, dated 23.06.2017 addressed to the field formations to undertake recovery process in view of Order dated 28th March, 2017 of the Supreme Court passed in State of Odisha v. Reliance Industries Ltd. and Others, SLP(C) No.14454-1477/2008 pursuant to legal position as set at rest by Nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision of said Hon’ble Court in the matters of Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1.

This Court clarified that entry of goodsspecified in the Schedule appended to the OET Act- into the local area for consumption, use or sale therein and return disclosing “tax payable” is required to be furnished as per subsection (1) of Section 7. It is provided under sub-section (10) thereof that each and every return is to be scrutinized by the Assessing Authority. If mistake is detected as a result of scrutiny. the Assessing Authority is vested with power to proceed with the matter against the dealer as provided under sub-section (11) Thus, it is explicit that detection of mistake in return upon scrutiny triggers action against the dealer asking it “to make payment of the extra amount of tax along with the interest as per the provisions of this Act”. The OET Act provides for levy of interest under sub-section (5) of Section 7. No other provision empowering Authority to levy interest is brought to the notice of this Court by any of the parties.

This Court while relying on Toyo Engineering India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, (2012) 47 VST 109 (Ori) observed that it would have to remit the matter to the Assessing Authority, but considering that the same would not serve fruitful purpose at this distance of time holds that issue of notice in Form E-24 under Rule

10(6)(b) of the OET Rules is not in conformity with the statutory requirement Since the balance amount of tax due as per disclosure made in the return(s) is known to the petitioner. setting aside the notice in Form E-24 and remanding for computation of tax liability to the Taxing Authority would ensure to the benefit of none. Therefore, the petitioner is required to determine its own liability as per self-assessed return(s) already filed.

This Court further observed that it is a part of scheme of the OET Act that tax becomes due the moment the dealer effects either purchases or brings scheduled goods into the local area for consumption, use or sale therein, which are subject to taxation and the obligation to pay the tax arises. Although the tax liability which comes into existence cannot be enforced till the quantification is effected by the “assessment” of the liability for payment of tax, the word ‘payable’ connotes a legally enforceable payment. As there was no scrutiny of return made by the Assessing Authority till the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the position of law no amount of tax was payable by the petitioner(s) with respect to transactions falling within the purview of paragraph 30 of Reliance Industries Ltd., (2008) 16 VST 85 (Ori).

The process of self-assessment comprehends the concept of admitted tax. Reference can be had to Section 2(q) of the OET Act read with Section 2(47) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Section 2(47) of the said OVAT Act defines the term “SELF-ASSESSMENT” to mean “a true and correct determination of net tax liability by a dealer in relation to any tax period”. Thus, the dealer is required by law to calculate his own tax liability and is given a time-frame to pay the same along with the return. It is quite possible that by the ultimate assessment the tax due may vary-be more or even less but at the stage of making of the return, obligation has been cast on the dealer to pay the admitted tax. Under the scheme of the OET Act, tax is due at the time the return is due as per Section 7(1) read with Rule 10(1), ie, within twenty-one days of the date of expiry of the month or quarter, as the case may be, to which the return relates. It is, therefore, manifest that the liability is to be saddled with interest un der Section 7(5), because of failure to make the payment of the tax due at the time of the submission of the return(s), and as provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 the interest shall be paid at the time of making payment of “tax payable”.

This Court held that so far as notice(s) issued in Form E-24 prescribed under Rule 10(6)(b) of the OET Rules read with Section sub-sections (10) and (11) of Section 7 of the OET Act is concerned, the Taxing Authority having not adhered to statutory procedure as clarified vide Toyo Engineering India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, (2012) 47 VST 109 (Ori) = 2012 (1) ILR-CUT 63 wherein the Court was in seisin of notice in Form E-24 as also notice in Form E-8, the impugned notice(s) in Annexure-9 series are quashed. As a consequence thereof, the Order dated 24.06.2017 passed in revision case No BH-30(E)/2017-18 by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha is set aside.

D. Ramesh Chandra Behera & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.35330 of 2020
Date of decision: 30th November 2023
Coram: Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi, Justice Murahari Sri Raman

Scope of indulgence of the High Court under Articles 226 & 227, in decisions made by
the Central Administrative Tribunal involving question of limitation, is very limited.

In this case, in response to Advertisement bearing Notification No. PF/GDSMD, Karapada BO, dated at Chhatrapur, the 3rd October, 2013, issued by the Government of India in Department of Posts, Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices/Inspector of Posts, Chhatrapur Sub- Division inviting applications in prescribed pro forma from intending candidates for the post of “Gramin Dak Sevak, Mail Deliverer, Karapada SO/SO/HO in account with Ganjam SO/HO” with pay scale of 3,330/- + admissible D.A. (for short hereinafter referred to as “GDSMD”), the petitioners made applications. Having not received any information with regard to fate of such applications even after much persuasion, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Berhampur Division, Berhampur acting on the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 22.09.2015 furnished information that out of 12 cases, only one vacancy has been filled up, but others have not been filled up due to nonreceipt of administrative approval.

Thereafter, after two years, the petitioners having approached, the Assistant Director (PG), Office of the Central Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar 751 001 vide Letter No.PG/27- 1391/2018, dated 07.05.2018 instructed the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Berhampur Division, Berhampur to inquire into the matter and take pecessary action to resolve the grievance. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court by way of the present writ application contending that as per information communicated vide Letter No.BFCCC/RTI/344, dated 24.09.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Annexure-10), it is made known that out of 11 posts, only 2 posts in respect of Sankuda B.O. and Paladhuspalli B.O. are filled up and rest 9 posts are not filled up as yet. Out of these 9 posts, the petitioners are interested for 3 posts relating to Sindurpur B.O., Karapada B.O. and Khojapalli B.O. which are shown to be “vacant”.

The opposite parties contended that as the selection process could not be completed by the opposite party No.5 (Assistant Superintendent of Posts of Chhatrapur Sub-Division, Chhatrapur) on or before the stipulated date, i.e., 30.06.2015, the notification dated 03.10.2010 stands cancelled in conformity with the Order contained in Directorate Letter No.17-39/7/2012- GDS, dated 28.05.2015. It is explained that the post of GDS, Khallikote RS Sub-Post Office could be filled up without prior permission by said opposite party No.5 as there was no requirement for administrative approval for filling up post in Sub-Post Office; hourever, while correspondences were being made to fill up other vacancies related to Branch Offices, Letter No.17- 39/7/2012-GDS, dated 28.05.2015 was issued by the Government of India in Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts (GDS Section), whereby instruction contained to fill up vacancies by 30.06.2015, or else, the earlier notification would stand cancelled. Said letter stipulated that “the vacancies should be filled under the new Ergsgement Process (Aptitude Test Method) applicable with effect from 01.04.2015”. Subsequently Letter No.17-23/2016-GDS, 01.08.2016, was issued containing instruction to “stop selection/ engagement of all types of Gramin Dak Sevaks with immediate effect”. The Original Application being filed with delay, in view of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the same has appropriately been held to be barred by limitation by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the unit petition, being devoid of merit consideration, is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioners contended that they had been kept in dark by not publishing the result even though they have been waiting since 2013 and they were pursuing the matter diligently for having a scope to eke out livelihood by getting appointment as GDS on consideration of their applications. Showing peeve against the ground of dismissal of O.A. No.630 of 2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide Order dated 04.06.2020, it is submitted that the same is passed without application of mind and the ground of limitation is contrary to the records. He went on to submit that it is “only after issuance of letter dated 07.05.2018 and so also information under the Right to Information Act, the cause of action to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal arose.

Further, they contended that the opposite parties have not only acted irresponsibly, but also with mala fides “by giving appointment in respect of one of the candidates for the same advertisement”. Referring to contents of paragraph 24 of the writ petition, he further submitted that ma fade is manifest as the opposite parties did not publish result of applications submitted by the present petitioners, whereas they have filled up one of the posts, namely GDSMD, Khallikote RS Sub-Post Office under “unreserved category”. Therefore, the petitioners have been discriminated against and Sri Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned Advocate in his usual style of vehemence made attempt to persuade this Court by submitting that ends of justice would subserve best if the opposite parties are directed to publish the result in consideration of applications made in connection with Advertisement dated 03.10.2013.

The Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 stuck to the stand taken in the counter affidavit as also the reply to the rejoinder affidavit and would submit that by virtue of instructions contained in Letter No.17- 39/7/2012-GDS, dated 28.05.2015 issued by the Government of India in Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts (GDS Section), the vacacies having not been filled up by the cut-off date, ie., 30.06.2015, the earlier notification stood cancelled. There was no necessity or requirement to intimate the result of the applications individually.

This Court while relying on Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, observed and held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It was further observed that the expression “sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It was further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It was further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoring the delay even by imposing conditions. Each application for condoration of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by the Supreme Court. It was further cbserved that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to Legislature.

This Court further iterated that in the instant case, no application for condoration of delay was filed. Furthermore, by virtue of instructions vide Letter dated 28.05.2015 read with Letter dated 01.08.2016 issued by the Government of India, referred to supra, the selection/engagement of “all types of Gramin Dak Sevaks has been stopped “with immediate effect”. As has been observed by the leamed Central Administrative Tribunal in its Order at paragraph 15 it is clear from the prayer of the petitioners that they seek relief in connection with publication of results of Advertisement dated 03.10.2013 in pursuance of which they have claimed to have applied for the post of GDSMD, Karpada Sub-Post Office. Record reveals that by communicating information vice RTI/Appeal-72/ R.Ch. Behera/BF/2015, dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure-4), the petitioners came to be aware of the factual position as to their applications. Therefore, there was no point, it appears, to further approach the Assistant Director (FG), Office of the CPMG, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-5) wherein it is stated that the grievance has been made on 23.03.2018 by the petitioner-Ramesh Chandra Behera. It appears these petitioners have been in deep slumber for over two years and woke up to ursue their matter after the revised selection process for ergagement to all approved categories of GDS posts has been put in place with effect from 01.04.2015 vide Letter No.17-39/7/2012- GDS, dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure-R-3 of the counter affidavit) with mandate that “in case any of these vacancies are not filled up latest by 30.06.2015, the notification should be cancelled and the vacancies should be filled under the neur engagement process (Aptitude Test Method) applicable with effect from 01.04.2015” and request to “stop selection/engagement of all types Gramin Dak Sevaks with immedicate effect has been circulated vite Letter No.17-23/2016- GDS, dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure-R/4 of the counter affidavit). Therefore, in the absence of any application under sub-Section (3) of Section 21 praying for condonation of delay, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Original Application, as it has no jurisdiction to admit and dispose of original application on merits. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal evaluating the merit of the matter, passed Order dated 04.06.2020 dismissing the original application on merits as well as limitation

The scope of showing indulgence by exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction delineated under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to review the decision taken by the leamed Central Administrative Tribunal taking cognizance of the evidence available on record and in consideration of mixed question of fact and law with respect to limitation contained in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is limited. Thus, this Court, in the aforesaid emerging factual matrix, need not go into the details of evidence to upset the settled factual position as that is not required while sitting in this jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, thus, finds no reason to show indulgence in the decision taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal as the petitioners could not succeed in persuading this Court by showing any procedural irregularity being committed in the proceeding before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal .