Dalveer Bhandari, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari and quo warrants for quashing the selection and appointment of respondents No. 2 to 4 for the post of Education Officer as null and void being in violation of the essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules as well as the qualification fixed at the time of short listing of the candidates for interview. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ for quashing the seniority list dated 12. 5. 1994 in respect of Education Officer and consequent seniority list dated 17. 5. 1994. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondents No. 2 to 4 did not have the basic qualification for appointment to the post of Education Officer. Respondent No. 1, University Grants Commission issued an advertisement by which applications were invited for three posts of Education Officer. In the advertisement, essential qualifications were also mentioned. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads as under: "applications are invited for three posts of Education Officer (One permanent and two temporary but likely to continue) in the office of the University Grants Commission. Qualifications Essential:- (1) First or Second Class Master s Degree from a recognised University. (2) Five years experience of teaching or research or of educational administration. Desirable: (1) Doctorate Degree (2) Experience in data processing" ( 4 ) THIS court issued Rule in the main writ petition and notice in the interim application and in pursuance of the order of this Court, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, University Grants Commission, a preliminary objection was taken that the appointment to the post of Education Officer having been made in the year 1989 has been challenged in 1994, almost after five years. Therefore, the petition is grossly barred by latches. Learned counsel appearing for the UGC has mentioned that under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, the limitation prescribed is one year. Section 21 of the CAT Act reads as under : 21. Therefore, the petition is grossly barred by latches. Learned counsel appearing for the UGC has mentioned that under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, the limitation prescribed is one year. Section 21 of the CAT Act reads as under : 21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made. (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates, and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub- section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, on the analogy of the Section 21, this petition suffers from latches of almost five years and the petition deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, on the analogy of the Section 21, this petition suffers from latches of almost five years and the petition deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. ( 6 ) IT is submitted that even on merit the petitioner has no case. It has been submitted by respondent No. 1 that application for the appointment of Education officer in general and officers in the category of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes category were invited in two batches. They were considered together for making a consolidated batch of two plus five posts, i. e. , one for SC, one for ST, and five for general candidates. In view of the large number of applications received for the post of Education Officer, a Screening Committee was constituted to shortlist the candidates. The main criteria adopted by the screening Committees was a good academic record, experience and Doctorate degree as desirable qualification. The petitioner did not have a very good academic record both at graduate and post graduate level. ( 7 ) THE central question which arises in the petition is whether the respondents had requisite qualification for the appointment or they had been appointed in contravention of rules and regulations? In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that all eligible candidates were considered and the Selection Committee in its wisdom had selected the candidates on the basis of their academic record and performance at the interview/ selection, It is further mentioned that the selections were made on the basis of comperative merit of the candidates. ( 8 ) IT is submitted by the respondent that the appoir" "sent of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are valid and legal and cannot be challenged on the ground that they did not have the basic qualification. ( 9 ) IT is submitted that respondents No. 2 to 4 were selected in the year 1989 and the petitioner was kept on the waiting list. The petitioner waited through out to get the appointment on the basis of the penal in question. Now, after the expiry of the penal, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the selection when the same was accepted by the petitioner through his conduct. The petitioner waited through out to get the appointment on the basis of the penal in question. Now, after the expiry of the penal, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the selection when the same was accepted by the petitioner through his conduct. The selection committee headed by the Chairman, University Grants Commission completed selection in proper manner and now it cannot be challenged at this stage when the officers so appointed have completed their probation period and stand confirmed to those posts. Respondents No. 2 to 4 have also been promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary. ( 10 ) THE respective educational qualifications and experience of the respondents No. 2 to 4 are mentioned here-in-below would show that respondents 2 to 4 had better academic career in comparison to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 s detailed qualifications: 1. M. Sc in Botany in the first Division in the year 1981. 2. Six years research experience (1981-1987) at the Botany Department, Osmania University, Hyderabad (India) during which period Ph. D obtained (1986) titled "studies on Some Physio Patological Aspects of Fruit-Rot Fungi". 3. Post-Doctoral research from September, 1987 to May, 1989 in Germany at Horticultural Section, Himbolt University, Berlin, supported by Ministry of HRD on "studies on Some effects of Bacillus Subtlis (T99) on Wilt Pathogen P. Oxy Sporumf. Pisi Schlect and its impact on Pea Plants". 4. August 1989 to February, 1990 worked as Pool Officer inscientist Pool of CSIR at Botany Department, Osmania University, Hyderabad, doing research and teaching. 5. From 1st Feb. 90 till Sept. , 90 worked as Research Assistant at Botany Department, Osmania University, Hyderabad. Respondent No. 3 s detailed qualifications : 1. Graduation from University of Delhi, 1983 with first class in B. Sc Mathematics. 2. M. Sc Degree in Agricultural Statistics given by Indian Agricultural Research Institute (Deemed University) with an over all grade point average of 4. 0/4. 0 topping the list of successful candidates for M. Sc. 3. During the said period submitted a thesis based on independent research work in partial fulfilment of the M. Sc. degree, as required by 11. 16 of the AIRI Post Graduate School Calendar, entitled "crop Insurance Premiums and Mathodology for its determination". 4. During the said period also received Junior Research Fellowship for two years. 5. Joined Ph. D. on 9. 9. 1985 and did research work towards Ph. D. Submitted Ph. degree, as required by 11. 16 of the AIRI Post Graduate School Calendar, entitled "crop Insurance Premiums and Mathodology for its determination". 4. During the said period also received Junior Research Fellowship for two years. 5. Joined Ph. D. on 9. 9. 1985 and did research work towards Ph. D. Submitted Ph. D. thesis entitled "statistical Aspects of Crop Insurance" on 31. 8. 1989 and passed final thesis viva-voce examination for Ph. D. on 10. 1. 1990. 6. Topped the list of successful candidates in Ph. D. with an over all GPA of 3. 95/4. 00. 7. On 25. 9. 1987 joined a Research Officer in National Board of Examinations) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ). As Research Officer independently heading the Research and Computer cell of National Board Examinations. The work was largely concerned with processing and evaluation of examinations and research proposals, preparation of status, papers, etc. Respondent No. 4 s detailed qualifications: 1. Obtained First Class in the Bachelor s Degree as well as Master s Degree in Applied Psychology with a first rank in the Madras University for Graduation and the second rank in the University for Post Graduation, the M. A. being awarded in 1983. 2. Assistant Prpfessor of Psychology at Women s Christian College from 1st March, 1983 to 30th April, 1983. 3. Assistant Professor of psychology at Lady Doak College from 11th July, 1983 to 7th January, 1984. 4. Research experience of 4 years from 23. 12. 1983 to 2. 3. 1988 leading towards a Ph. D. Degree, received Tamil Nadu Government Fellowships from 23. 12. 1988 to 23. 12. 1987. 5. Administrative experience as Course. Coordinator Academic Staff College, University of Madras from February, 1988 to July, 1988. 6. Administrative experience as Programme Executive, National Service Scheme appointed by University of Madras from August, 1988 to July, 1989. ( 11 ) THE petitioner passed his Master s Degree in Chemistry in the second division whereas respondents No. 2 to 4 have secured first division. ( 12 ) IT is submitted by the respondent that comperative merit indicates that respondents 2 to 4 were academically superior and they were rightly selected. ( 13 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the rival contentions thereto. ( 12 ) IT is submitted by the respondent that comperative merit indicates that respondents 2 to 4 were academically superior and they were rightly selected. ( 13 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the rival contentions thereto. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the selection which has taken place in 1989 by a writ petition filed in July, 1994. There is no explanation whatsoever for this undue delay in filing the petition. The delay is quite significant in the facts and circumstances of this case because respondents No. 2 to 4 who were appointed as Education Officer had completed the entire period of probation and they have been substantively confirmed on that position and thereafter they have been promoted as Deputy Secretaries to the Government. If the petitioner had genuine or legitimate grievance then he ought to have approached the court without delay. It is well settled law that delay defeats equity. Condoning the delay of almost five years in the instant case is bound to have very serious repercussions particularly when the petitioner has failed to give any explanation of such gross delay. ( 14 ) RESPONDENTS No. 2 to 4 have submitted that the petitioner has no case even on merit. The detailed qualifications and experience as set out above clearly indicates that respondents No. 2 to 4 not only possessed requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Education Officers but in academic qualification respondents 2 to 4 were indeed better than the petitioner. ( 15 ) IT is for the selection committee to evaluate comparative merit. Prima facie, even on evaluation of comperative merit respondents 2 to 4 were superior to the petitioner. . The respondents No. 2 to 4 had secured first division in their master s degree, whereas the petitioner had only a second division in master s degree. The petitioner had failed to point out any infirmity in the selection process. ( 16 ) ON consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed with costs.