1. In a writ petition filed, it was contended that in the selection process conducted through written as well as oral tests, while the petitioners obtained in aggregate more marks than the persons selected, unjustly, those were appointed but the petitioners were not. In six years, no counter thereto was filed. Writ petition was, accordingly, decided on July 25, 2000. The Court directed the Selection Board to prepare a comparative merit list and to indicate the marks of the last selected candidate and of the petitioners. Court directed that in case the petitioners have obtained higher marks than the last selected candidate, then appropriate steps should be taken in that regard. Court further directed that benefit of reservation would also be considered against Scheduled Caste category. Court directed that the said exercise should be done within a period of three months from the date a copy of the order is supplied by the petitioners to the respondents and also to the counsel for the State. Court then stated as follows: "In case this is not done, then the pleas taken in this petition shall be deemed to be admitted, and the petitioners would be entitled to a letter of appointment having issued in their favour." 2. This order reached finality, as no appeal was preferred against the said order nor any step was taken to review the said order. 3. Despite service of a copy of this order to the respondents and the counsel for the State, no action was taken. That resulted in filing of a contempt petition. While the Court was dealing with the contempt petition, it was contended that the records of the selection are not traceable. In the circumstances, while disposing of the contempt application, despite a good case for sentencing the contemnors had been made out, the Court merely reiterated the direction already given in the original order to the effect to issue appointment letter in favour of the contempt applicants. Against the said order, present appeal has been preferred. 4. In preferring the present appeal, there is 202 days delay. Reasons furnished for delay in preferring the appeal are not convincing. That apart, there is no merit in the appeal also. It was contended that period of limitation for taking action for contempt is one year and the contempt application was presented after one year after the order was passed on the writ petition. Reasons furnished for delay in preferring the appeal are not convincing. That apart, there is no merit in the appeal also. It was contended that period of limitation for taking action for contempt is one year and the contempt application was presented after one year after the order was passed on the writ petition. While making such submission, no attempt has been made to even assert when the contempt application was served and when three months period to comply with the order was over. That apart, the wrong alleged in the contempt application was a continuing wrong and acceptance thereof was made only when the contempt application was considered by purporting to contend that the selection records have been lost. 5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this application for condonation of delay should be nipped in the bud and, accordingly, we dismiss the same.