: 1 : cwp-2816-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2816 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF M.A. NO. 247 OF 2008 IN O.A. NO. 190 OF 2009 Vinayak Dyandeo Kamble .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Prakash Wagh for the petitioner Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, J.J. DATE : 7th JUNE 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. We find no reason to upset the order passed by the Tribunal which proceeds on the finding that delay of about three years in taking recourse to the proceedings before the Tribunal remained unexplained. As no sufficient cause was made out the inevitable order was to reject the original application, being barred by limitation. 3. To get over this position, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have all along assured the petitioner that he will be considered for appointment, as and when vacancy was to be filled in : 2 : cwp-2816-11=.doc future. It is further argued that in the subsequent Medical checkup, the petitioner was found to have fulfilled the requirement of 165 cms in height. In other words, he fulfills all the requirements. This argument does not take the matter any further. Inasmuch as, unless the petitioner was to first explain the inordinate delay in filing of the original application, the question of examining the contentions on merits will not arise. In the context of inexplicable delay, Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was disabled from filing original application because of his precarious financial position. 4. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the original application being barred by delay. It is incomprehensible that the petitioner could not have made necessary arrangement soon after the rejection of his representation on 25th / 26th January, 1997 and instead waited to file the original application only after resorting to successive representations to the Authorities. The Tribunal has rightly observed that making of successive representations can be no basis to condone the delay in filing the original application. 5. Suffice it to observe that the petition is devoid of merits. The same rejected. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)