IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE SIDE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2783 OF 200 PETITION NO.2783 OF 200 PETITION NO.2783 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------------------------- Office Note, Office Court’s or Judge’s Orders Memoranda of Coram appearance, Corut’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.A.R. Pitale, for the Petitioner Mr. D.A. Dubey, for the Respodnents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 4th March, 2005 : 4th March, 2005 : 4th March, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard forthwith. The petitioner is challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has dismissed his Revision Application by refusing to condone the delay. 2. From the record we find that what the petitioner in fact is challenging is his non-selection. Selection took place on 27th May, 1997. The petitioner was making representations which were rejected by memorandum dated 17th August, 2001. He approached the Tribunal only in the year 2003. The learned tribunal found that the delay could not be condoned and consequently dismissed the Original Application. We find no reason to interfere with the exercise of the discretion. We also find that there was selection in which a candidate was selected. The selected candidate was not made party. The selection was done in 1997. This would be another reasons for this Court not to interfere with the impugned order. With the above observations Writ Petition rejected. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (S.P. (S.P. (S.P. KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.) KUKDAY, J.)