WP(C) 3932/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr.M.H.Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I h ave also heard Mr.A.D.Choudhury learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of laches and delay. The material fact of the case is that on 2.1.92, the Inspector of School,Barpeta had issued an advertisement inviting candidate for the post o f Asstt.Teacher at different High Schools. The petitioner has also applied for t he post and was invited for the interview, which she duly appeared. Thereafter a select list was published on 2.7.92 and her name was also figured at serial No. 143 in the select list. Even though large number of candidates were appointed i n terms of the aforesaid select list, no appointment letter was issued to the pe titioner. The petitioner alongwith another candidate filed a petition being C.R. No.937/96, before this Court, which vide order dated 7.3.96 was disposed of by d irecting the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent au thorities and by directing the respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation within two months. It is claimed by the petitioner that another candidate, namel y, Sri Hargobinda Pathak was appointed as Asstt.Teacher while her case was not c onsidered. About 18 years later, the petitioner is approaching this Court seekin g the same relief. I am constraint to observe that this writ petition suffers fr om an inordinate delay; no explanation, much less, satisfactory explanation is f orthcoming. In any case, after 18 years of the disposal of her first case by thi s court. I fail to understand as to what possible relief could be granted by one at this belated stage. The Apex Court has time and again observed that an aggri eved person must approach the appropriate court within a reasonable period of time. A delay of 18 years cannot certainly be considered to be marginal delay. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is not maintainable and i s liable to be dismissed which I hereby do. Parties are however, directed to bear their respective costs. The dismissal of this writ petition shall not however be a bar against the peti tioner to approach the respondent authorities for consideration of her case on s ympathetic grounds.