ORDER : Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order dated 17.12.2016, as passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1139/2009. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the petitioner had been an applicant in response to a Notification dated 26.5.2001, issued to fill up the posts of High School Assistant Teacher Grade-II in Hindi. The applicant, who made application under category 2B, was not selected and he submitted his objection dated 03.10.2001 to the final provisional select list. As per the record, the applicant obtained information under the Right to Information Act, and he was informed by respondent No.3, by a communication dated 7.11.2005, that final select list was published on 15.12.2003 and the original documents were verified in respect of all the 23 candidates; and further as per this information furnished to the applicant, 17 candidates were issued with the orders of appointment and the remaining six were not found eligible for the post, and later on, their selections were cancelled. 3. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner made representations in the year 2008 complaining against denial of selection and then, approached the Tribunal in the year 2009. It was submitted that the respondents had not considered the merit of the petitioner and as per his merit standing, he was entitled to be selected. The respondents pointed out in the reply, inter alia, that it was only on 03.03.2008 that the applicant came out with the representation and that application was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The Tribunal proceeded to reject the claim of the applicant while observing, inter alia, as under: “11. The respondents raised legal ground that the applicant cannot challenge the selection for the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi as per Notification dated 26.05.2001 and final select list was published on 21.09.2001, i.e., after lapse of 7 years. The applicant submitted his representations dated 03.03.2008 and 06.09.2008. The delay has not been explained. The applicant did not question his non-selection immediately after the publication of the final select list. He filed the present application on 03.03.2009. The applicant cannot re-open the issue by giving representations after 7 years. The representations submitted by the applicant have been considered and issued the endorsement dated 26.09.2008. The delay has not been explained. The applicant did not question his non-selection immediately after the publication of the final select list. He filed the present application on 03.03.2009. The applicant cannot re-open the issue by giving representations after 7 years. The representations submitted by the applicant have been considered and issued the endorsement dated 26.09.2008. The delay from the publication of the final select list dated 21.09.2001 till 26.09.2008, the applicant has not explained. The applicant fails to convince us for his selection as Assistant Teacher in Hindi under 2B category under Notification dated 26.05.2001. We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the applicant and they are seen to be not relevant to facts of this case. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the applicant fails to establish his case for grant of relief as prayed for in the application. The respondents have justified in their reply statement stating that the applicant is not eligible for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi subject in Bangalore Division. Hence, the application is devoid of merits and same is liable to be rejected.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has strenuously argued that the final select list having not even been issued by the respondents, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner and he had approached the Tribunal at the earliest possible time after receiving the endorsement on his representations. 5. On an overall comprehension, it is but clear that the petitioner was aware of the denial of selection in the year 2001 itself as he submitted his objections on 03.10.2001. His making of repeated representations thereafter does not enure to his benefit. It is difficult to accept that merely after receiving the endorsement on the representations made in the year 2008, that the petitioner could have sought reopening of the matter by filing an application in the year 2009. 6. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere so as to consider the claim of the petitioner in regard to the selection that had taken place way back in the year 2001. 7. The petition stands rejected.