JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 15.2.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking directions to the respondents to give him appointment on the post of Constable (GT) from the date the candidate lower in merit to him was accorded appointment, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD), Constable (Driver), Constable (Band) etc. under the provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules") in different districts of Rajasthan. The appellant applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD). On being declared successful in the written test, he was called for physical fitness test. According to the appellant he qualified the physical fitness test yet his name was not shown in the merit list. On information being sought under Right to Information Act, he was informed that at the time of physical fitness test, his deflated chest measurement was found 80.9 cm., which is less than the minimum measurement prescribed under sub-rule (2) & (3) of Rule 14 of the Rules. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying him appointment though he had secured more marks than the last person selected in the ST category, the appellant preferred writ petition before this court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge while relying upon an earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in Heera Ram vs. State & Ors. (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.10872/15) decided on 18.1.18, held that since other candidates in SC category having physical fitness as prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 being available, the appellant was not entitled for relaxation in terms of proviso (iii) to sub-rule (2), which provides that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, whose height and chest measurements are less by 5 cm. shall be deemed to be physical fit in case requisite number of suitable SC/ST candidates possessing physical fitness as laid down in Rule 14(2). 5. The appeal reported to be barred by limitation for 227 days is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 6. shall be deemed to be physical fit in case requisite number of suitable SC/ST candidates possessing physical fitness as laid down in Rule 14(2). 5. The appeal reported to be barred by limitation for 227 days is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 6. The reasons assigned for inordinate delay in filing the appeal as set out in the application read as under: "3. That after passing of the judgment dated 15.02.2018, the appellants decided to file appeal after receiving the copy of judgment dated 24.01.2017 alongwith, which was approved and the same is being filed without any further delay. 4. That a delay of 227 days has been caused in filing the appeal, however it is submitted that the delay so caused is bona fide and not deliberate as file move from one section to another as per procedure. Hence, in the interest of justice the same is liable to be condoned more so in view of the fact that the appellant is having a strong case on merits in his favour." 7. A perusal of the explanation set out does not convey as to what were the exactly the reasons which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within limitation. Obviously, the appellant being an individual filing the appeal, the question of movement of the file from one section to another as in case of the Government or the other public authorities, does not arise. To say the least, the explanation of delay as set out in no manner constitute a sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay of 227 days in filing the appeal and thus, the application preferred for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in light of a Bench decision of this court dated 28.9.18 rendered in the matter of 'State of Rajasthan vs. Kamal Meena' (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.1112/18), the appellant, a member of Scheduled Tribe is entitled to benefit of proviso (i) to Rule 14(2) of the Rules, which provides that minimum height of the candidates belonging to the Hill and Tribal areas shall not be less than 160 cm. and their deflated and inflated chest should not be less than 79 & 84 cm. respectively. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the appellant's deflated chest was found to be 80.9 cm. and their deflated and inflated chest should not be less than 79 & 84 cm. respectively. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the appellant's deflated chest was found to be 80.9 cm. and thus, he has been wrongly deprived the appointment on the post of Constable (GD). Accordingly, it is submitted that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. It is pertinent to note that the matter relates to Rajasthan Police Constable Recruitment 2013 initiated vide advertisement issued in the month of July, 2013. By this time, the recruitment process is already over and none of the persons selected, who has secured less marks than the appellant is party to the proceedings. Moreover, a perusal of proviso (iii) to Rule 14(2) reveals that the relaxation in height and chest measurement to the extent of 5 cm. to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is available only in case requisite number of suitable SC/ST candidates possessing physical fitness standards as laid down in Rule 14(2) are not available. Admittedly, the appellant was not fulfilling the requirement of deflated chest measurement as laid down under Rule 14(2) and the requisite number of ST candidates fulfilling the physical fitness as prescribed under Rule 14(2) were available and have been accorded appointment and thus, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in holding that in the facts situation, the appellant was not entitled for relaxation in chest measurement invoking (iii) proviso to Rule 14(2) of the Rules. It is not the case set out by the appellant in the petition filed that he belongs to Hilly or Tribal Area and therefore, being member of Schedule Tribe, he is entitled to claim benefit of proviso (i) to Rule 14(2) of the Rules. As a matter of fact, the entire case was set out by the appellant on the strength of third proviso to Rule 14(2) of the Rules and not on the strength of first proviso to the said Rule and thus, at this belated stage, without there being foundation in the petition in this regard, this Court is not inclined to entertain the contention sought to be raised by the appellant at this stage by entertaining the intra court appeal, which is hopelessly barred by limitation. 10. 10. In view of the discussion above, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act as also the special appeal are dismissed. No order as to costs.