Judgment :- 1. The petitioner herein questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 9.2.2009 passed in Application No.1338/04 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-A, in so far as the petitioner is concerned filed the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue an order of appointment, appointing the petitioner to the post of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Maratil) with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondents have issued a Notification dated 25.2.1999, calling applications for appointment to the post of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati). Accordingly in pursuance of the said Notification petitioner having all the requisite qualification has submitted her application. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have conducted the enquiry and completed the proceedings. They have not selected the petitioner inspite of her having all the requisite qualification and being more meritorious and she is entitled for appointment of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati). The respondents got to explain the same by issuing an endorsement stating that, the petitioner has done D.Ed examination from Maharashtra State and hence, she is not eligible for selection to the post applied by her in pursuance to the notification. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal immediately in pursuance of the endorsement/communication issued by the 1st respondent. After delay of more than five years, she has filed Application No. 1338/04 along with another applicant on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore seeking a mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for appointment to the post of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati) in pursuance to the notification dated 25.2.99 issued by the 1st respondent and select and appoint the applicant as Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati) with all consequential benefits. The said application filed by the petitioner along with another applicant had come up for consideration on 9.2.2009. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and after going through the grounds urged by the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents in their objections, has dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches. The said application filed by the petitioner along with another applicant had come up for consideration on 9.2.2009. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and after going through the grounds urged by the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents in their objections, has dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 9.2.2009 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.1338/04 produced at Annexure-A, the petitioner has presented this writ petition, seeking an appropriate relief as stated supra. 4. The principal submission made by Sri.G.G.Chagashetti learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, Tribunal has committed a grave error in not selecting the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in Marati language in pursuance to the notification dated 25.2.1999 issued by the 1st respondent and he was quick to point out the matter of fact that, the petitioner is eligible and being a meritorious student, she has completed her education in Diploma in Education in the examination conducted by the Maharashtra Board and Diploma in Education is equivalent to T.Ch of Karnataka State. He was further quick to point out that, Annexure-A4 produced along with the application was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government I/c Education and Y.S. Department dated 27.5.1975, wherein it is stated that, the Diploma in Education of Maharashtra Government is equivalent to the TCH Examination of the Karnataka State Government. This relevant clinching evidence available in the file, has not been considered by the Tribunal, except referring that there is a delay of more than five years in the petitioner approaching the Tribunal for redressing her grievance and that, she has not approached the Tribunal within reasonable time. Therefore, the said reasoning given for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to issue appropriate direction, cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that the order impugned may be set aside and appropriate direction may be issued, allowing the application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 5. As against this, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 inter-alia contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as just and proper as it is passed with due consideration of the relevant material on the file, the prayer sought for by the petitioner stands declined and interference by this court at this stage is not called for. 6. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties the only point that arises for consideration is. “Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law?” 7. The facts of the case on hand is that in pursuance to the notification of the 1st respondent dated 25.2.1999, calling application for appointment to the post of Primary School Assistant Teacher (Marati) petitioner who is one of the applicants contended that she has competed her SSLC and also Diploma in Education from Maharashtra state, which is equivalent to TCH of the Karnataka State. The total vacancy notified were 13 in number and only 5 posts have been filled up. The remaining have not been filed up on the ground that no eligible candidates were available. If the petitioner is eligible her case ought to have been considered and he specifically contended that as a matter of fact, he places reliance on Annexure-A4 dated 27.5.1975 issued by the Education Department clarifying that Diploma in Education of Maharashtra State is equivalent to TCH examination in Karnataka State. It is significant to note that, infact the specific ground taken by the Tribunal in Para 12 of the order is that the Diploma in Education of Maharashtra State is equivalent to TCH examination in Karnataka State. But there is a delay in the petitioner approaching the Tribunal and further, he places reliance on the order passed by this Court in WP Nos.7634-36/2000. That order has been passed one decade ago and that cannot be considered in this case. Further, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘N.BALAKRISHNA v. KRISHNA MURTHY’ reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 and submitted that the Tribunal ought not have rejected the prayer sought for by the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches, instead of considering the case on merits. 8. Further, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘N.BALAKRISHNA v. KRISHNA MURTHY’ reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 and submitted that the Tribunal ought not have rejected the prayer sought for by the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches, instead of considering the case on merits. 8. Therefore, from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal ought to have considered the prayer sought for in the application it is significant to note that the specific ground taken by the learned counsel cannot be sustainable nor justifiable due to efflux of time for the reason that, it is a matter of fact and it is not in dispute as specifically referred in Para 10 of the order passed by the Tribunal that in pursuance of the notification dated 29.10.1999 only five posts have been filled up due to non-availability of candidates. It is pertinent to note here itself that these unfilled five vacancies were carried forward to the next recruitment in the year 2001-02 and all the posts were filled up in the next recruitment itself in the year 2001-02. In view of all the unfilled posts in pursuance to the notification dated 25.2.1999, being filled up as early as in the year 2001-02 the question of considering the relief sought for by the petitioner at this stage is not justifiable nor we find any good grounds to entertain the relief sought for by the petitioner in this petition. 9. Further, it is pertinent to note that there is a delay of more than five years. However the learned counsel has placed reliance on the endorsement issued dated 19.12.2003 in pursuance to the notification that no candidate was selected in pursuance to the notification issued in the year 1999 and immediately after receipt of that endorsement she has filed application before the Tribunal and there is no delay. The said application does not hold water for the reason that, she is seeking relief on the basis of the notification dated 25.2.1999 and the endorsement issued on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner dated 19.12.2003, seeking clarification whether any candidate is appointed in rural weightage quota, there is nothing on record in explaining the delay in filing the application. This aspect has not been explained nor the delay is explained satisfactorily. This aspect has not been explained nor the delay is explained satisfactorily. On the ground of delay and laches also, the writ petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 10. In the light of the above observations, the writ petitioner is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.