Dinesh Maheshwari - (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order dt. 24.07.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 6610/ 2012) as filed by the petitioner seeking to assert his right of appointment in the selection process held in the year 1998 on the post of Cook (Skill -A). The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition for being the highly belated one; and has dismissed the same while observing as under: - By this petition for writ a challenge is given to appointment given to Mohd. Ali Azhar, The process of selection in the case in hand was made in the year 1998 and appointments too were made immediately thereafter. The petitioner at the first instance sought information about the fate of the process of selection in the year 2007 and necessary information thereafter was given to him in the month of September, 2008. He remained silent for good ten years, and even after receiving necessary information, he did not care to challenge the appointments for good four years. The delay caused in the matter has also not been explained in this petition for writ. No relief as claimed for can be given at this belated stage. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed.
(2.) SEEKING to question the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner -appellant has been making representations regularly and in fact, he came to know about the relevant facts only after seeking information under Right to Information Act. The submissions hardly give out a reasonable explanation for inordinate delay in filing of the writ petition in the year 2012 in relation to the recruitments made way back in the year 1998. The learned Single Judge cannot be faulted in refusing to exercise the writ jurisdiction in this matter. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.;