S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. All these three petitions involve common facts. The grounds taken are also similar. Therefore the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. SCA 4916/86 : in this petition there are three petitioners S/shri B. S. Savalia, V. J. Kotadia and O. D. Virani. The petitioners prayed for setting aside and cancellation of the appointments of respondents No. 1 to 3, namely, S/shri K. N. Dhami, G. N. Tilada and V. U. Korat. Respondent No. 1 is serving as Inspector while respondents No. 2 and 3 are serving as clerks in the office of Kalavad Agriculture Produce Market Committee. It is alleged by the petitioners that the appointment of Mr. K. N. Dhami, respondent No. 1, is illegal as he was not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of accounts clerk. Respondent no. 1 was appointed as accounts clerk on 13-1-1969 on temporary basis for three months. Vide order dated 13th January 1970 respondent No. 1 was appointed as permanent clerk. He was promoted to the post of accountant under order dated 6-3-1974. Under resolution dated 11-5-1976 (the counsel for the petitioners agrees that the date 11-5-1986 written in para 7 of the petition is incorrect) respondent No. 1 was given posting as Inspector by the agricultural Produce Market Committee. Appointment of respondent No. 1 is and said to be made by way of favoritism and nepotism. Rule 4 (b) of the relevant recruitment rules lays down qualification for appointment to the post of clerk and it is metric or SSC examination, which respondent No. 1 is not possessing. So far as promotion is concerned, the petitioners have come up with the case that under Rule 4 (b) of the relevant rules promotion is available only to employees who are graduates and have experience of four years in service. Further, posting of respondent No. 1 on the post of inspector has also been challenged on the ground of lacking minimum qualification. It has further been stated that appointment of respondent No. 1 has been made without calling applications either from employment exchange or from open market. When initial appointment of respondent No. 1 itself was bad, then the subsequent promotions are also equally bad. It has further been stated that appointment of respondent No. 1 has been made without calling applications either from employment exchange or from open market. When initial appointment of respondent No. 1 itself was bad, then the subsequent promotions are also equally bad. He was favoured because he was brother-in-law of Shri Vasarambhai Patel who was chairman of the Marketing Committee at the relevant time. ( 2 ) APPOINTMENT of respondents No. 2 and 3 have been challenged on the ground that the same had been made under the pressure of the then Chairman and as such it suffered from the vice of favouritism and nepotism. The appointment has been made without following the procedure laid down, i. e. by inviting applications from employment exchange or from open market. It is necessary to mention here that it is not the case of the petitioners that respondents No. 2 and 3 were not possessing the requisite qualification for appointments. From the facts stated in para 11 of the petition it comes out that respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have also challenged the appointments of the petitioners by filing special civil applications No. 595/86, 594/86 and 509/86. Special Civil application no. 509/86 was summarily rejected. However, appeal has been filed, against rejection of the petition, which is admitted. This petition is therefore the counterblast of the action aforesaid taken by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. SCA 594/86 : ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein V. U. Korat is respondent No. 1 in special civil application no. 4913 of 1986. Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein V. J. Kotadia and O. D. Virani are petitioners No. 2 and 3 in special civil application No. 4913 of 1986. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner herein has not challenged the appointment of Shri B. S. Savalia, may be for the reason that he is the Secretary of the Market Committee. Respondent No. 2 is stated to be son of close friend of Chairman of the Committee. Respondent No. 2 was given appointment as seasonal inspector for three months without any advertisement, under resolution dated 2-1-1981. The petitioner made complaint about this appointment before respondent No. 4 and even to the concerned Secretary of the department. Respondent No. 2 is stated to be son of close friend of Chairman of the Committee. Respondent No. 2 was given appointment as seasonal inspector for three months without any advertisement, under resolution dated 2-1-1981. The petitioner made complaint about this appointment before respondent No. 4 and even to the concerned Secretary of the department. Finding merit in the complaint, the concerned officer gave direction in writing to the Chairman of the Committee on 9-4-1981 that appointment of respondent 2 has not been legal or properly made. Recruitment has to be made only after calling the names from employment exchange or by giving public advertisement. Instead of withdrawing the appointment of respondent No. 2 the Committee in its resolution dated 11-2-1981 gave permanent appointment to respondent No. 2 as inspector with effect from 3-4-1981. Grievance has been made against this resolution to the concerned authorities. The concerned officer has given direction that the Committee should cancel the appointment. No action has been taken and as such the petitioner had sent notice to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 was given appointment as Inspector on 8-10-1984 as he was the nephew of the Chairman. Complaint has also been made by the petitioner against the said appointment, but nothing has been done, and as such this writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the orders of appointment of respondents No. 2. and 3. SCA 595/86: ( 4 ) THE petitioner herein is Gordhandas Narsibhai Tilada who is respondent No. 2 in special civil application No. 4916/86. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are petitioners No. 2 and 3 in special civil application No. 4916/86. The facts of this case are common to the facts of special civil application No. 594 of 1986 as both respondents No. 2 and 3 are common. ( 5 ) IN special civil application No. 594 of 1986 and 595/86 further affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Secretary of the Marketing Committee. In this further affidavit the subsequent events which have taken place after filing of the petition have been brought on record. The Secretary of the Market Committee stated that under order dated 29-8-1987 services of Shri O. D. Virani as Inspector were terminated with effect from 30-9-1987. This order of termination was challenged by Mr. Virani by filing special civil application no. The Secretary of the Market Committee stated that under order dated 29-8-1987 services of Shri O. D. Virani as Inspector were terminated with effect from 30-9-1987. This order of termination was challenged by Mr. Virani by filing special civil application no. 4386 of 1987 and that petition has been dismissed by this court on 28th April, 1988. Mr. Virani filed LPA against the said order, and the LPA has also been dismissed. The lpa Court directed the Market Committee to issue public advertisement for filling up the post, and time bound programme was prescribed. Pursuant to the order of Division Bench of this Court, advertisement was issued inviting applications and interviews were held in which one Rameshbhai Limbabhai was selected as Inspector at serial No. 2 in the select list and Shri O. D. Virani was kept at serial No. 3 in the select list. Shri Rameshbhai limbabhai has not joined his duty and therefore O. D. Virani was appointed on 17-9-1988. This appointment of O. D. Virani is not challenged in the present writ petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in special civil application No. 4916 of 1986 contended that appointment of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were void ab initio, illegal and as such the same may be quashed and set aside. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 contended that the writ petition suffered from the defect of delay and latches. Appointment of respondent No. 1 was made in the year 1969. Promotion was given in the year 1974 and 1976. Initial appointment has been challenged by the petitioners after more than 17 years. The next promotion has been challenged after about 12 years and the last promotion has been challenged after 10 years. The writ petition as such deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in this special civil application does not dispute that the respondent No. does not possess the requisite qualification as laid down for appointment to the post of Clerk or inspector. From para 9 of the writ petition I find that the petitioners have not given the date of appointment of respondents No. 2 and 3. From para 9 of the writ petition I find that the petitioners have not given the date of appointment of respondents No. 2 and 3. It is also not the case the petitioners in the writ petition that respondents No. 2 and 3 do not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post in question. The challenge is made to the appointment of these persons on the ground that the same has been made in flagrant violation of the recruitment rules. ( 7 ) I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners of special civil application No. 4961 of 1986 have not stated in the petition that they have been regularly appointed on the post of Secretary and Inspectors. On the other hand from the averments made in writ petitions No. 594/86 and 595/861 find that appointment of petitioners No. 2 and 3 in special civil application No. 4916/86 were also not made in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. Though against these persons there is no challenge on the ground of lacking of qualification by them for the posts, but the attack is on the ground that they were appointed without following the procedure, i. e. by calling applications from employment exchange or by inviting applications from open market. From the facts of the case which have come on record I find that appointment of petitioners No. 2 and 3 in special civil application No. 4916/86 and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein are not legal. But it is also a fact that appointment of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in this special civil application were made long back and as such the question of delay and latches will arise. When the petitioners appointment was invalid, they cannot challenge the appointment of others. These petitions are nothing but counter- blast, as stated earlier. Looking to the conduct of the parties and delay and latches in approaching this Court, no writ can be issued in these matters. ( 8 ) IN the result all these three writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. Rule discharged in all the petitions. No order as to costs. .