JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia seeking quashment of the order dated 18.05.2016 whereby her representation dated 18.03.2016, pursuant to the judgment dated 11.03.2016 rendered in petitioner's case has been rejected. 2. The petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition being S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2432/2016, which came to be decided by this Court on 11.03.2016, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation with the corresponding direction to the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law. 3. After the aforesaid judgment in petitioner's case, the petitioner proceeded to submit a representation on 18.03.2016, which representation has been rejected by the Additional Director (Administration), vide its order dated 18.05.2016 inter-alia observing as under:- ^^mDr fu.kZ; euksgj flag cuke ljdkj ,oa vU; ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk ,uthvks@IyslesUV ,slsUlh ds ek/;e ls lafonk ij dk;Zjr dfeZ;ksa dks cksul vad fn;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij gSA jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 19 esa fu;eksa esa leku dk;Z ds vk/kkj ij gh cksul vad ns; gSA ;kfpdkdRrkZ lafonk ij ekgs'ojh n;kuUn fodkl lfefr] Jhxaxkuxj esa dkmUlyj ds in ij dk;Zjr gS] tks fd futh laLFkku gS ,oa ftldk dk;kZuqHko Hkh dkmUlyj ds in dk gSA dkmUlyj in dk dk;Z ulZ&2 ds in ds dk;Z ds leku ugha gksus ds dkj.k cksul vad ns; ugha gSA dkmUlyj dk dk;Z jksfx;ksa ds jksx ls cpko vkfn dh lykg nsus dk gS tcfd ulZ&2 dk dk;Z ejhtksa dh ns[kHkky dh vksihMh@vkbZihMh@vksVh esa dk;Z djus dk gS ftlls Li"V gS fd dkmUlyj dk dk;Z ulZ&2 ds dk;Z ds leku ugha ds dkj.k ulZ&2 ds in gsrq vuqHko dk ykHk ns; ugha gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ds e/;utj ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 11-03-2016 dh ikyuk esa izLrqr vH;kosnu fnukad 18-03-2016 dks ,rn~}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 4. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, laying challenge to the order passed by the respondents on 18.05.2016 by submitting the writ petition on 29.05.2017, i.e. after a delay of about one year. 5. The petitioner's grievance relates to appointment on contractual basis as a Counselor. The petition in question is highly belated and suffers from laches as the petitioner has been sleeping over the matter for a considerable period. 5. The petitioner's grievance relates to appointment on contractual basis as a Counselor. The petition in question is highly belated and suffers from laches as the petitioner has been sleeping over the matter for a considerable period. There is no explanation of the aforesaid delay of one year in filing the writ petition in the memo of the writ petition. 6. Without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.