JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. V.R. Avula, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. 2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in Review I.A. No. 1 of 2019, by which the order dated 28.12.2016 passed in W.P. No. 3875 of 2003 was sought to be reviewed. 3. The writ petition was filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants') to regularize the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Electronics with effect from 18.09.1987 or from 01.04.1991, with all consequential benefits. 4. On due consideration, by judgment dated 28.12.2016, the writ petition was allowed directing the appellants to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1991 i.e., the date on which the post was admitted to grant-in-aid, with all consequential benefits including service and monetary benefits. It was further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. The appellants filed an application being I.A. No. 1 of 2019 seeking to review the order dated 28.12.2016. The said review application was dismissed on 24.03.2021 observing as follows : "3. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, alleging wilful disobedience of the said order passed in the Writ Petition, filed Contempt Case No. 1926 of 2017 on 14.09.2017. Initially, this Court, on 08.11.2017, issued notice before admission in the Contempt Case. It is also important to note that vide Memo No. 1967/CE.A1/2017, dated 16.07.2018, the State Government directed the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education to implement the order dated 27.12.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3875 of 2003 as was done in other similar cases of Sri. K.R.K. Raju and Sri. Sarveswara Rao, Lecturers of Ideal College, Kakinada and Sri. S.S.S. Durga Ganesh, Lecturer in Mrs. A.V.N. College, Visakhapatnam. The same was followed by another Memo No. 1967/CE.A1/2017, dated 15.12.2018. While the things being so, the petitioners herein, who are respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition, filed the present Review Petition on 01.10.2019. 4. K.R.K. Raju and Sri. Sarveswara Rao, Lecturers of Ideal College, Kakinada and Sri. S.S.S. Durga Ganesh, Lecturer in Mrs. A.V.N. College, Visakhapatnam. The same was followed by another Memo No. 1967/CE.A1/2017, dated 15.12.2018. While the things being so, the petitioners herein, who are respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition, filed the present Review Petition on 01.10.2019. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner that in the absence of any valid reason for the delay in filing the review application, the review petition filed by the petitioners herein is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader strenuously submits that limitation period stipulated under the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing review application, cannot be made applicable to the review applications in the Writ Petitions. Even assuming that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 with regard to period of limitation for filing review application, cannot be made strictly applicable to the review applications in the Writ Petitions, the review applications are required to be filed within a reasonable time. In the instant case, though the order in the Writ Petition came to be passed on 28.12.2016 and though the Contempt Case was also filed on 14.09.2017, after lapse of approximately 3 years from the date of passing the order, the present review application is filed on 01.10.2019 without any valid and sufficient reason. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the unexplained delay, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the review application. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioners herein/respondents in the Writ Petition, are granted six weeks' time to comply with the order passed in the Writ Petition." 6. Perusal of the above order goes to show that the learned single Judge did not propose to go into the merits of the review application as the same was filed approximately after three years from the date of passing the order in the writ petition without assigning any valid and sufficient reason and as such, the learned single Judge was not inclined to condone the unexplained delay. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the appellants, submits that no period of limitation is prescribed in respect of filing review applications against the orders passed in writ petition and therefore, there is no question of condoning the delay. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge erred in law in not entertaining the review application and on this ground alone, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M. Jagadeeswara Rao and others v. The Divisional Forest Officer, Vizianagaram District and others (W.A. No. 881 of 2006, dated 01.09.2006), to buttress the contention that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable in review applications. 8. Mr. V.R. Avula, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, submits that while the contempt case being C.C. No. 1926 of 2017 was pending consideration, the 1st appellant had issued a memo dated 16.07.2018 directing the 2nd appellant to implement the orders of this Court in respect of the writ petitioner as well other similar cases of K.R.K. Raju, Sarveswara Rao and S.S.S. Durga Ganesh. However, the order of the Court was not complied with and the review application being I.A. No. 1 of 2019 came to be filed on 01.10.2019. It is submitted that as no explanation was given whatsoever for inordinate delay of three years in filing the review application, the learned single Judge did not consider the case projected in the review application and therefore, there is no merit in this writ appeal. It is further submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable against the order in review application as the review application having been dismissed, there is no merger of such order with the final order in the writ petition. Mr. V.R. Avula relies on the decision of Bench of five Judges of this Court in B.F. Pushpaleela Devi v. State of A.P., and others, reported in AIR 2002 AP 420 and the decision of a Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of The District Collector, Collectorate Office and Others v. N. Udayappan and Others decided on 17.03.2021, reported in AIR 2021 Madras 99. 9. In reply, Mr. 9. In reply, Mr. K.V. Raghuveer submits that the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as the review application was dismissed not on merits but on the ground of delay. 10. Perusal of the order of the learned single Judge goes to show that the learned single Judge had observed that even assuming that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 with regard to the period of limitation for filing review application cannot be made strictly applicable to the review applications in the writ petitions, the review petitions are required to be filed within a reasonable time. The learned single Judge may not be correct in holding that the Limitation Act, 1963 may not be applicable to the review applications in the writ petitions inasmuch as in the case of M. Jagadeeswara Rao (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had categorically observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the petition filed for review of an order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge, however, observed that the review applications are required to be filed within a reasonable time. The Division Bench of this Court in M. Jagadeeswara Rao (supra) had also observed that High Court is not bound to entertain in each and every case the application for review ignoring unexplained delay of any length. However, it was made clear that the application filed for review of the order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be decided by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. 11. The Division Bench in M. Jagadeeswara Rao (supra) noted the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 and Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, reported in AIR 1970 SC 898 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the proposition that a petition filed after long lapse of time without proper explanation of delay can be dismissed. 12. 12. Though the learned single Judge had used the expression "not inclined to condone the unexplained delay", essentially, the Court did not propose to go into the merits of the review application on the ground that the review application was filed without any valid and sufficient reason after approximately three years from the date of passing the order. 13. On perusing the review application, we did not find a single averment as to why the review application came to be filed after three years. However, to be sure that we have not overlooked any such explanation, we asked Mr. Raghuveer as to whether there was any explanation for delay of three years in filing the review application. He candidly admits that this aspect of the matter was not adverted to in the review application. 14. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, without going into the question as to whether an appeal against an order rejecting an application for review on the ground of unexplained long delay, is maintainable, we hold that no interference with the order of the learned single Judge is called for. 15. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.