IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :17610 of 2007 DATED:27.8.2007. Between: S.Rajani ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy Dist & others. .....RESPONDENTs THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:17610 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 21.3.2007 passed in O.A.No:1452 of 2003 by the tribunal and also seeking to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of school assistant (science) strictly as per the merit obtained by her by extending the benefit of judgment in O.A.No:411 of 1997, dated 27.2.1998 with all consequential benefits such as seniority on par with one V. Anjaneyulu with effect from 1989 and with all attendant benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned G.P. for Education. The petitioner is the applicant. She has filed the O.A No:1452 of 2003 challenging the action of the respondents in not appointing her as school assistant (science) by extending the benefit of judgment dated 27.2.1998 in O.A.No:411 of 1997 on par with less merit candidate as illegal and arbitrary. The tribunal having observed that cause action arose to the applicant in the year 1989 or even from the date of the order of the tribunal issued in O.A.No:2771 of 1993, dated 29.12.1993 or O.A.No:411 of 1997, dated 27.2.1998 and therefore, the O.A is hopelessly time barred and hit by laches and the individuals cannot sleep over the matter and choose their own time to seek remedy after exhausting the time in view of the limitation under the A.P. Administrative Tribunal’s Act and the rules framed there under, dismissed the O.A. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the applicant. We have perused the material available on record as well as the order impugned. There is no dispute as to the claim made by the applicant with regard to D.S.C. 1989 and also as to the disposal of O.A.No:2771 of 1993, dated 29.12.1993 or O.A.No:411 of 1997, dated 27.2.1998. If that being the case, the cause of action for seeking redressel arose either in the year 1989 or from the date of judgments in O.A.No:2771 of 1993 and O.A.No:411 of 1997 as rightly observed by the tribunal. Having slept over the matter nearly about 14 years, the applicant has approached the tribunal without any proper cause of action and thereby, it can be said that she has not approached the Court with clean hands. We see no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI) 27th August, 2007 (JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH) gurc THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:17610 of 2007 (Order delivered by the Honourable Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari) 27th August, 2007.