JUDGMENT : KS JHAVERI, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in the captioned writ petition. 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant possessed necessary educational qualification as required under the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 prevailing at the relevant time. However, his case was not considered and the learned single Judge also failed to appreciate the said aspect of the case. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. While rejecting the petition, the learned single Judge observed in para7 as under; “7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of present case, it is an admitted fact that the competent authority of the respondents has taken decision on 24.08.2009 rejecting the petitioner's request for his appointment on compassionate basis. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the decision dated 24.08.2009 was not challenged and instead of challenging the said decision dated 24.08.2009 at the relevant time petitioner continued to make representation after representations. The petition preferred after inordinate delay does not deserve to be entertained. The petitioner's application was rejected on 14th September 2009. Again the two representations came to be rejected vide order dated 01.04.2010 and 30.09.2011. Now all the orders are sought to be challenged together in this petition. Merely by making representation after representations the petitioner cannot extend the reasonable period to challenge an order. The first order is sought to be challenged after almost 3 years. In view of such delay the petition does not deserve to be entertained. The judgment relied on by the petitioner is rendered in different set of facts and circumstances and therefore same is not applicable in present case.” 4. The main factor that weighed with the learned single Judge was delay. Considering the above aspect, we find no infirmity or impropriety in the order passed by the learned single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the order passed by the learned single Judge and find no reasons to entertain this appeal. Hence, the appeal is rejected.