This writ appeal has arisen under the following facts and circumstances:- The appellant as writ petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. Civil Rule 363 of 1996 in this Court on 5.8.1996 with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electronics) with effect from 15.6.1989 with all the arrears of salary from the date on which the respondent No. 3, allegedly junior to the petitioner, was so promoted. 2. It was alleged in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (now appellant) was working as Junior Technician (Electronics) with the respondents. He, pursuant to a circular dated 18.1.1989, for promotion to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electronics), had applied for the said post but was not called for interview whereas the respondent No. 3 along with other eligible candidates were called for interview and on the basis of the interview conducted the respondent No. 3 had been appointed as Junior Engineer (Electronics). 3. The learned Single Judge has non suited the appellant (writ petitioner) on the ground of delay and laches. Since the promotion was being sought for w.e.f. v 15.6.1989 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1996, according to the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was highly belated and no explanation was coming-forth for approaching the writ Court at such a belated stage. The explanation that was given before the learned Single Judge was that the writ petitioner (now appellant) had received the reply from the respondents only on 22.4.1996 and there was no earlier occasion to file the writ petition. This explanation did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 4. From the record of the writ we find that the earliest representation was made on 15th June, 1989 and thereafter, the writ petitioner remained silent and then followed it by representation dated 24.11.1995 and still followed by demand notice dated 9.3.1996. This demand notice dated 9.3.1996 was replied to and it was stated that, after receiving the comments from R&P Section, Regional Office, it was seen that the writ petitioner was not called for interview as the criteria fixed was 70% marks whereas the writ petitioner had secured only 60% marks. 5. This demand notice dated 9.3.1996 was replied to and it was stated that, after receiving the comments from R&P Section, Regional Office, it was seen that the writ petitioner was not called for interview as the criteria fixed was 70% marks whereas the writ petitioner had secured only 60% marks. 5. The question that arises is that it can a person who has got a cause of action to approach the Court keep on representing much beyond three years and then on the basis of some sort of reply get any cause of action? To our mind, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner did not get a fresh cause of action when the reply was received. He made a representation in June, 1989 and sat silent over the matter till 24.11.1995. 6. It has been held by the Apex Court that though there is no period of limitation provided for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but normally the Court should not entertain a writ petition after the period of limitation for filing a civil suit. Two judgments of the Constitutional Bench, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 and AIR 1973 SC 1168 may be referred to. 7. Another thing which is to be seen is that whether anybody else would be affected by the grant of relief to a particular person at a belated stage? If the prayer is granted and the writ petitioner is promoted with retrospective effect, naturally it will affect the persons already promoted in that rank and may be in the higher ranks also. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.