Judgment :- The petitioner is challenging the legality and correctness of the dismissal of her application by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Bangalore, dated 19.11.2008 passed in Application No.70/2000. 2. The petitioner was working as a teacher in the Urdu Primary School. She was dismissed from service by order dated 13.5.2008 on account of her unauthorized absence. Two years later through her power of attorney holder an application was filed by the petitioner before the KAT challenging the order of dismissal. 3. The facts leading to this case are as here under:- The applicant at the first instance was working as a teacher in Urdu Higher Primary School at Chickmagalur. She applied for leave for three days with effect from 22.12.1992. Thereafter, she did not report for duty. Two years later a notice was issued to her. Notice sent to her was not received by her since she was not residing in the address furnished to the department. Having no other option a public notice was taken out through Kannada Praba Daily newspaper on 1.4.1998 and 26.3.1998. In spite of the same she did not report for duty. Since she was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 25.12.1994 to 11.7.1997 disciplinary authority held an enquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 13.5.1998. This order was questioned by the appellant by filing an application two years after passing of the order of dismissal. 4. It is her case that she was transferred from Chickmagalur to Joladal village on 16.6.1995. Before she could report for duty at Joladal village another teacher by name Mohd. Samiullah was transferred and she was not given any posting and thereafter she was directed to report for duty in Urdu Higher Primary School at Yelambalase in which place she reported for duty and therefore, she contends that her absence from 23.12.1994 to 11.7.1997 cannot be considered as unauthorized one. 5. The Government contested the case on the ground that she was absent unauthorizedly and left the country without prior permission and has been residing permanently at Qatar. The Tribunal considering all these facts dismissed the application on merits and as the application was not filed within the period of limitation dismissed the petition without condoning the delay of one year. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on 19.11.2008. The Tribunal considering all these facts dismissed the application on merits and as the application was not filed within the period of limitation dismissed the petition without condoning the delay of one year. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on 19.11.2008. The present writ petition is filed on 23.4.2010, one-and-half years after the dismissal of the application by the Tribunal. 6. Before this Court no reason are assigned to condone the delay. Normally writ petition is required to be filed within a reasonable time. Before the Tribunal an application was filed two years after her dismissal from service. Now also same mistake is committed by the petitioner in filing this petition 1½ years after the dismissal of her application by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing at Qatar and left the country without prior permission or approval of the department. No reasons are assigned by the petitioner for her unauthorized absence. If a teacher has absented herself unauthorisedly for years together, this Court visualizing what would be the fate of the children cannot be so liberal in giving relief to a teacher who has absented herself unauthorisedly and living in abroad. If a teacher has left the country without prior permission and if the department has conducted enquiry by taking out notice to her through paper publication in which the charges leveled against the petitioner are not seriously challenged, this court cannot lightly interfere with the order passed by the tribunal. Therefore, we do not see any reasons to entertain the petition and also we are of the opinion that the petition has to be dismissed on account of delay and latches also. Accordingly, this petition is rejected.