Sanjay Misra,J:- The special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22 November 2013. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, apart from challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) (the second respondent) the petitioner sought to challenge a selection process which was held in 2001 which has resulted in the appointment of the sixth respondent on 12 December 2001. The learned Single Judge has held that a petition which has been filed in 2013 for challenging a selection and appointment of 2001 could not be entertained and was liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. 3. The contention of the appellant is that there was no delay on his part since he had been representing before the authorities to the effect that as against the seven posts of Seasonal Amin, four should have been open for the general category whereas only three posts were kept for open or general category candidates. Hence it is urged that this Court should interfere in the matter at this stage by directing the State to create an additional post. The learned counsel submitted that the denial of arrears of salary would meet the ends of justice if such a direction shall be given. 4. We are unable to accept the contention. The case of the appellant is that the selection of the sixth respondent was contrary to law. Admittedly, the sixth respondent was selected and an appointment letter was issued to him on 12 December 2001. The appellant had in fact filed writ proceedings before this Court earlier in 2001 seeking a direction to the authority to reexamine his answer books. On 20 December 2001, the learned Single Judge held that this relief could not be granted but the appellant may file an application for disclosure of his answer papers. The appellant claims that it was when he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act then he realized that the appointment of the sixth respondent was not in accordance with law. However, that still does not explain the delay on the part of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel sought to rely upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Tiwari Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & others, 2003 Law Suit (All) 1864. However, that still does not explain the delay on the part of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel sought to rely upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Tiwari Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & others, 2003 Law Suit (All) 1864. It must be noted that in that case the judgment of the Division Bench was in an appeal of 1999 and it would be clear that the writ proceedings which were instituted had been filed without any delay. This judgment is not an authority for the principle that the Court, irrespective of delay, has an unrestricted power to unsettle settled issues and can question an appointment which has been made in the distant past. The element of repose is equally important and settled expectations of persons cannot be disturbed after a lapse of such a long period of time as in the present case. 6. 6. The delay is completely unexplained. Merely submitting a representation and, for that matter several of them, is not an explanation for not moving the Court within time. 7. The Additional Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) has while rejecting the representation adverted to the delay of 12 years besides which it has been stated that the selection list is only valid for a period of one year. Hence no case for interference in the special appeal is made out. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. ______________