JUDGMENT : SURYA KANT, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9th August, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Shimla (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), whereby the miscellaneous application filed in Original Application for condonation of delay of 526 days has been dismissed and resultantly, the Original Application also stands dismissed on the ground of limitation, delay and laches. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Matron on contract basis on 24th August, 2009. The contract period expired after 10 months. She was again engaged on daily wage basis from 1st August, 2012 to 31st May, 2013 and from 1st August, 2013 to 31st May, 2014. Meanwhile, the post was again re-advertised for selection on daily wage basis. The petitioner applied; participated in the selection process, but having failed to make it to the selection list, she filed Original Application No. 063/01216/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 526 days. The respondent raised an objection that the delay was actually of 752 days. The Tribunal vide order under challenge considered the plea on behalf of the petitioner and finding no merit therein, the application has been dismissed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are satisfied that no case to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal is made out. We say so for the reason that no plausible explanation has come forth as to what prevented the petitioner from challenging the selection process within the reasonable time, moreso when the factum of selection was in her knowledge as she herself has participated in the selection process. The delay of almost two years in filing the Original Application in such circumstances is quite fatal. The plea taken by the petitioner that she wanted to file rejoinder before the Tribunal in the application for condonation of delay appears to be an afterthought as no such request was made before the Tribunal at the time of arguments. 4. Assuming that the delay was condoned and the petitioner's Original Application was heard on merits, still no case to interfere with the selection is made out. It is not the petitioner's case that there were considerations other than merit which prevailed in the matter of selection or that there was any violation of any Rule or Statute in concluding the selection process. It is not the petitioner's case that there were considerations other than merit which prevailed in the matter of selection or that there was any violation of any Rule or Statute in concluding the selection process. She having participated in the selection process and taken a chance of her own selection, cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold. 5. The selection took place in the year, 2014. The private respondents might be serving since then. It is too late to disturb their engagement on daily wage basis at this juncture. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the instant petition and as such, same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.