1. IRSHAD HASSAN KHAN, J.-- Hearing the learned counsel, it has become evident that the Service Tribunal has largely been influenced by the assumed fact that the appellant before it (also the appellant herein) had approached the Tribunal belatedly and beyond time. On merits it has been contended that direct appointments were made detrimental to the rights of prospective promotees, in circumstances where to out of three available vacancies were required to be filled in by promotees as against one by virtue of direct appointment. It was the converse of this, which actually transpired, as elaborated in the ing Order passed by this Court on 7.4.1996. In such matters, involving a principle, limitation becomes a secondary issue and a fetish of technicalities cannot be made. What is to be seen is whether an action has been taken, which has no action in law and which may be close to being void or of no legal effect. Reference here may be made to the under- noted observation in Muhammad Yousaf and 4 others V. Abdul Rashid and others (PLJ 1997 SC 393):- " Before concluding, we may mention here that in some of these cases it vas argued that the appeal before the Tribunal was not maintainable as the departmental representation was rejected as time-barred. The learned Tribunal rejected this plea. This plea of limitation was repeated before us in some of these appeals. However, keeping in view the general importance of the legal questions raised in these cases, it would not be appropriate, to non-suit some of the appellants on the plea of limitation. We, therefore, overrule of the plea of limitation." in the above circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay, if any, and remand the case back to the Service Tribunal for a fresh determination on merits and in accordance with law. In doing so, the guidelines set out in the Leave Granting Order would obviously be adhered to. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of by a commensurate order of remand.