JUDGMENT
R.A. Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 25-2-1982 as a temporary Hindi typist until further orders in the Small Industries Service Institute, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). By order dated 11-9-1988, his services were terminated by the Director of the institute, as he could not qualify in the special qualifying examination for the said post conducted by the Staff Selection Commissioner, New Delhi, held in the month of March 1987. About seven years after the termination of his services, he made a representation dated 14-6-1995 before the Director against the termination of his services. Thereafter, he filed O.A. No. 628 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the CAT) seeking quashing of the order dated 16-9-1988, whereby his services were, terminated. The CAT on 1-11-1995 disposed of the said case with a direction to the Director to decide the said representation within a period of three months of the receipt of its order. The Director vide order dated 6-2-1996 dismissed the representation holding that the post of Hindi typist which the petitioner was holding has already been filled up long ago, i.e. on 8-4-1991 and there is no vacancy now of Hindi typist. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner again filed another O.A. No. 231 of 1996 before the CAT. which has been dismissed vide order dated 1-1-7-1996. Till not satisfied, he has filed this writ petition challenging the order of termination of his service dated 16-9-1988, order of the Director (respondent No. 4) dated 6-2-1996 rejecting his representation and the, order of the CAT dated 11-7-1996 rejecting his OA No. 231 of 1996.
2. The parties have exchanged the affidavits and we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. This writ petition has to be rejected for the following reasons:
(i) The petitioner is guilty of excessive delay and laches. If a person is aggrieved by an order terminating his services, he should approach the appropriate form within the time prescribed by law and if no such time has been fixed, within reasonable time. The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has fixed one year as the period of limitation within which an order can be challenged. The services of the petitioner was terminated by the Director vide order dated 11-9-1988. The petitioner filed a representation against the said order before the Director in June, 1995, i.e., after about seven years of the order terminating his services. Thereafter he filed his claim in 1995 before the CAT which was clearly time barred. It is not open to a person to challenge the order of termination of his service after such a long period. Even the CAT has no jurisdiction to entertain such a time-barred claim. The CAT has rightly rejected the petitioner’s case as time-barred and has given good reasons in support thereof, with which we agree.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this connection submitted that it is only after the petitioner learnt about the orders passed by the CAT in the cases of Sri Mangal Singh and Miss Shesha Kumari, whose services were terminated in 1991 on the similar ground, that he filed the representation in June 1995 before the Director and thereafter approached the CAT and, therefore, he cannot be said to be guilty of delay and laches. This submission is devoid of merit for more than one reasons:
Firstly, as held by the Director in his order dated 6-2-1996, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the cases of Miss Shesha Kumari and Sri Mangal Singh and that of the petitioner are not similar. Shri Mangal Singh’s case was with regard to promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ under the quota reserved for Group ‘D’ staff. The case of Miss Shesha Kumari, who was working on ad hoc basis as IDC, was regarding the regularisation of her services. She filed her claim before the CAT for regularisation in which directions were issued for consideration of her claim for regularisation by the Staff Selection Commission and till then she was allowed to continue on the said post. The petitioner’s claim is altogether different, and Secondly, every person has to challenge an adverse order within reasonable time. If he fails to do so, he cannot succeed later on merely because someone else has successfully got rid of an adverse order.
(ii) The post of Hindi typist has a ready been filled up long ago in 1991. It has been so stated in the impugned order passed by the Director as well as in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. If this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 11-9-1988 terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside, he has to be reinstated in service as Hindi typist. But. as there is no such vacant post available in the Institute, the question of appointing him as Hindi typist does not arise ; and
(iii) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Hindi typist vide order dated 25-2-1982 until further order with the clear stipulation that he will “have no claim whatever for absorption in any regular vacancy later on. His services may be terminated at any time without notice or assigning any reason”. As he failed to qualify in the qualifying examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in March 1987, his services was terminated. He has no right to the post. In terms of the conditions of service contained in the appointment letter his services can be terminated at any time. No exception can be taken to such an order.
4. This writ petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
5. I agree.