JUDGMENT 1. - Under a short term advertisement dated 31.7.2003, the respondents invited applications from the eligible desirous candidate s to be considered for appointment as Nurse Grade-III, against existing 825 vacancies, at the consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/-. The process of selection initiated under the advertisement aforesaid came to an end on 27.9.2003. The instant petition for writ was filed on 27.7.2006 claiming appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II, by considering her as a person belonging to General category. No explanation is given by the petitioner for filing this petition for writ after a2 period of about three years from the date of completion of process of selection, except that the petition for writ has already been admitted by this Court on 3.4.2008, therefore, the same is now required to be decided on merit and the objection of delay in agitating cause is not available at this stage. 2. To substantiate the contention reliance is placed upon Division Bench of this Court in Firdosh Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., RLW 2000(3) Raj. 1544 . In the case aforesaid, while examining a matter of disciplinary action, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that in normal course a petition for writ after its admission is not required to be dismissed on the ground of delay or alternative remedy. While observing as above, the Hon'ble Court also found that an adequate explanation was given for causing delay in filing the petition for writ in the case concerned. 3. In the case of R.S. Makashi and Ors. v. M. Menon and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 101 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that vested rights regarding seniority, rank and promotions etc. accrued by flux of time are not required to be disturbed, if challenged at belated stage. 4. True it is, there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay in filing a petition for writ the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the cause. Question of delay is required to be examined in each case at its own facts. 5. In the instant matter, a challenge is given to the process of selection that came to an end in the year 2003. All the vacancies advertised have already been filled-in, as such, third party rights have already been accrued. The rights so accrued are also not due to any fraud and mischief, but as a consequent to regular selection. 5. In the instant matter, a challenge is given to the process of selection that came to an end in the year 2003. All the vacancies advertised have already been filled-in, as such, third party rights have already been accrued. The rights so accrued are also not due to any fraud and mischief, but as a consequent to regular selection. The cadre in which petitioner in claim appointment is having a definite strength and, if the writ as claimed is issued that will cause ouster of at-least one selected employed person. A person selected should have a security and his appointment cannot be kept open for challenge for all times to come and for indefinite period. Thus, the rights so created are not required to be interfered at this belated stage. 6. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******