JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph C.J. (Oral), 1. Petitioner was appointed as group-D employee in the unit of District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, as per the order dated 29/30-10-1975. As per the said order, the second respondent also was appointed as group-D employee in the same unit. Later, the second respondent was promoted as Second Division Assistant on 4-11-1983. The petitioner was given independent charge of the post of Second Division Assistant and posted as such as per Annexure-F order dated 22-5-1987. Later, as per the Annexure-G order dated 29-6-1990, the petitioner was regularly promoted as Second Division Assistant. Thereafter, the .petitioner preferred Annexure-F appeal, praying that he may be retrospectively promoted as Second Division Assistant from 1-6-1987. The said appeal was rejected by the High Court as per Annexure-K order dated 9-7-1996. 2. Long thereafter, petitioner submitted an administrative appeal as per Annexure-L dated 10-12-2004 praying that the District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga may be directed to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Second Division Assistant in the quota earmarked for Scheduled Tribe candidates in the second vacancy that occurred on coming into force of the Government Order No. DPAR 29 SBC 77 dated 27-4-1978, as amended by Government Order dated 30-8-1979 with all consequential benefits. The said administrative appeal dated 10-12-2004 was withheld by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga as per Rule 23(1)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, the Rules). The appeal was withheld on the ground that the appeal was preferred beyond the stipulated period of three months and without any application praying for condoning the delay. The said order dated 23-3-2005 (Annexure-M) is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The prayer in Annexure-L appeal is vague and sufficient confusing. The averments in the appeal indicates that the grievance of the petitioner is against the promotion of the second respondent as Second Division-Assistant on 4-11-1983, allegedly overlooking the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Second Division Assistant against the said vacancy. Thus, if Annexure-L is an appeal, it can be only an appeal against Annexure-D order dated 4-11-1983 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga, promoting the second respondent as Second Division Assistant. Thus, if Annexure-L is an appeal, it can be only an appeal against Annexure-D order dated 4-11-1983 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga, promoting the second respondent as Second Division Assistant. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the promotion of the second respondent and denial of promoting to the petitioner against the vacancy of Second Division Assistant, which arose in the year 1983, he should have preferred an appeal against the order/action or the District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, within three months from the date on which the second respondent was promoted as Second Division Assistant. Therefore, the first respondent is right in taking the view that Annexure-L appeals is filed beyond the period of three months stipulated for filing an appeal. Admittedly, no application for condoning the delay was filed along with Annexure-L appeal. 4. Rule 23(1)(iii) of the Rules provides that the authority which made the order appealed against, may withhold the appeal if it is not submitted within the period specified in Rule 20 and no reasonable cause is shown for the delay. Since the Annexure- L appeal was not filed within the period stipulated in Rule 20 of the Rules and since the petitioner did not file even an application for condoning the delay, the first respondent is justified in withholding the appeal under Rule 23(1)(iii) of the Rules. Hence, we do not find any illegality in Annexure-M order impugned in this writ petition. 5. In the above circumstances, there is no. merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.