ORDER 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. Even on second call, none appears on behalf of the respondent. 3. The facts in short indicate that the respondent-Sumitra Devi applied for recruitment as against the post of "woman constable". She admittedly belongs to Bawaria Community. She appeared in the recruitment test held on 13.3.1989. After passing the examination and the physical endurance test, she was called for medical examination for the post of "woman constable" in Delhi Police. After she was declared medically fit, her candidature was cancelled vide letter dated 26.10.89 on the ground that her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as "Scheduled Tribe" candidate but on verifying the papers it was found that the appellant belonged to "Bawaria Community" in Haryana State, which is enlisted as "Scheduled Caste". The respondent after a lapse of 12 years, filed a representation on 23.10.2001, relying upon the order of Tribunal dated 8.12.1997 wherein she stated that the learned Tribunal allowed OA No.639/1997 and on that basis she should be considered for appointment. Thereafter she filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal as OA No.545 of 2003 on 3.3.2003. The same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 4. The respondent filed writ petition before the High Court by the impugned Judgment and order dated 29.10.2007 issued direction to the Government of NCT of Delhi to issue appointment letter to her with a further direction given to treat the period w.e.f. 1989 for pensionary and retiral benefits. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the Government of NCT is in appeal in this Court. Vide Order dated 28.4.2008, this Court issued the notice and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and gone through the order passed by the Tribunal and the judgment & order passed by the High Court and the documents placed on record. 7. It is a case where the respondent had slept over her rights, if any, for twelve years. Thus, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation. 8. Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and the respondent did not belong to the said category. She belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. The appellant's action of declining to appoint her was proper. Thus, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation. 8. Admittedly, the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and the respondent did not belong to the said category. She belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. The appellant's action of declining to appoint her was proper. The High Court while granting relief has noted the fact that the difficulties faced by the Bawaria Community serving in Delhi Police on account of the controversy regarding their status as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe. They were earlier treated as Scheduled Tribe Category and were appointed and started serving there. The Department started terminating their services. As such, they approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal gave the relief in the circumstances to in-service candidates as it was a case of mistake committed by the Department for which the persons belonging to Bawaria Community were not at fault. In our opinion, the instant case is clearly distinguishable from the case in which the Tribunal granted the relief and in which the incumbent had been appointed and was in service. The said logic of mistake could not be applied by the High Court as respondent had not been appointed in this case in the year 1989 itself as she was not entitled to stake claim against the post of Scheduled Tribe. 9. We have no hesitation to set aside the judgment of the High Court. The application filed before the Tribunal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. 10. We set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the appeal is allowed. 11. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.