1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4094 OF 2010 Vitkar Dilip Ganpat & Ors. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Ms Vaishali Jagdale i/b. Mr. K. R. Jagdale for Petitioners. Mr. S. N. Patil – AGP for State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 15, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the State. 2. Writ petition is directed against the Order dated 14th January, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby Original Application preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed on the ground that the cause of action is barred by limitation. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the 2 petitioners and perused the impugned order passed. The Tribunal in paragraph 9 has observed thus : “In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the main relief sought by the applicants is direction to the Respondents to permit the applicants to change the option from the post of Artist-cum-Operator to Draftsman in pursuance of the Government decision dated 31.10.1998. It is also admitted that specific time limit of one month was laid down in the above mentioned G.R. for exercising option. Option once given was not allowed to be changed. The applicants have once exercised the option. Subsequently, they made representations to change their option and admittedly, their request was rejected by the Respondents in the year 2001. The applicants’ claim which is now put forward in the present O.A. was denied by the Respondents long back and letter to that effect was also issued on 31.8.2002. It obviously means that for the main relief claimed in para 10(a), cause of action arose for the first time in the year 2002. This is not a case of continuous cause of action. So, there is delay of about seven years in filing the present application. From the perusal of the delay condonation application, it is very clear that the applicants have not at all shown any cause, leave aside the sufficient cause for not filing the application in time.” It is not in dispute that the petitioners exercised the option and at a latter point of time made representations seeking permission to change the option already exercised. These representations were rejected by the competent 3 authority in the year 2001. It appears that the same grievance has been canvassed by the petitioners once again by filing Original Application. It is in these peculiar circumstances the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application as barred by limitation is just and proper, needs no interference. Writ petition dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)