ORDER : 1. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Himachal Road Transport Corporation petitioner applied for the post of Driver. Though after his being selected, he was also sent for training, but he was not offered appointment on account of the fact that before he could be offered appointment, Model Code of Conduct came to be enforced due to Legislative Elections in September 2007. After the elections were over, new Government decided not to offer appointment to the candidates selected in the selection process initiated during previous regime, as a consequence of which, petitioner alongwith other similarly situate persons, who were duly qualified, was not offered appointment, aforesaid persons approached this court by way of CWP No. 2976 of 2008, titled Dev Raj and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation. This Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondent Corporation to offer appointment to the petitioner on the basis of advertisement published in September, 2006, for 241 posts of drivers. Pursuant to aforesaid judgment, respondent Corporation offered appointment to the petitioners in the year 2009, including the petitioner, but since appointment letter was not received by him, he did not join. 2. In the year 2012, respondent decided to offer appointment to left out candidates, who had qualified the trade test in 2007. For conducting pre-appointment training of remaining candidate of 2007, call letters were issued and said information as uploaded on website of the Corporation. Apart from above, respondent-Corporation also issued press release calling upon selected candidates to attend training schedule with effect from 9.4.2012, however, the fact remains that the petitioner failed to make himself available for pre-appointment training on the given date, as such, he could not be given appointment in the year 2012. However subsequently, in the year 2013, on the basis of representation made by petitioner, he was offered appointment to the post of driver, which was accepted by him. 3. Now, the precise grouse of the petitioner is that since he was selected in selection process initiated in the year 2007 and had completed 15 days training in 2007 itself, respondent-Corporation ought to have granted him seniority from that date only, as has been done in the case of similarly situate person namely Krishan Kumar, who had also appeared for driving test in 2007 alongwith the petitioner. 4. Respondent-Corporation has filed status report, wherein facts as taken note above, have not been disputed. 4. Respondent-Corporation has filed status report, wherein facts as taken note above, have not been disputed. The only ground raised for rejection of case of the petitioner is that since entire selection process was kept in abeyance due to decision taken by newly formed Government in the year 2007, there was no occasion for the respondent to offer appointment to the petitioner in that year. It is further averred in the reply, that in the year 2009, petitioner failed to come present for attending preappointment training, despite specific intimation sent to him, as such, he is not entitled to consequential benefits pursuant to his appointment as driver retrospectively rather, from the date, he joined the services. 5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 2493 of 2016, which stands transferred to this court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 7571 of 2019, praying therein for following substantive relief “Direction may kindly be issued to Respondent to regularized the applicant as Driver from the date the junior of the applicant or Sh. Krishan have been regularized of Notional basis and the period of notional regularization may kindly be ordered to be counted for increment and seniority in the cadre of driver.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court finds that though the petitioner herein was offered appointment as driver in the respondent-Corporation in the year 2013 but definitely pursuant to advertisement/selection process initiated in the year 2007. It is also not in dispute that all the similarly situate persons, who alongwith the petitioner had participated in the selection process in 2007, were not offered appointment in the year 2007 on account of decision taken by newly formed Government not to offer appointment on the basis of process initiated during the old regime. It is only after passing of judgment in Dev Raj supra, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondent to offer appointment to petitioners in that case on the basis advertisement issued in September, 2006, that the respondent- Corporation decided to offer appointment to all remaining candidates, including petitioner. It is only after passing of judgment in Dev Raj supra, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondent to offer appointment to petitioners in that case on the basis advertisement issued in September, 2006, that the respondent- Corporation decided to offer appointment to all remaining candidates, including petitioner. However, it is not in dispute that petitioners in Dev Raj supra and few other similarly situate persons including Krishan were offered appointment in the year 2009 on the basis of selection process initiated in the year 2006-2007, but the petitioner herein failed to make himself available for training. Once it is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed training in the year 2007, there was no occasion for respondent-Corporation to call for the petitioner to attend the training. Otherwise also, careful perusal of communication dated 1.5.2012, issued by Himachal Road Transport Corporation Sarkaghat, Annexure A-2, clearly reveals that the petitioner herein was asked to join his duties with effect from 16.1.2009, but such intimation was not received by him, as he was not available at given address, when such communication was sent to him. On the basis of said communication, Krishan, joined duty with effect from 16.1.2009 as such, was accorded seniority from that date. 7. Now the claim of the petitioner is that since factum of his being offered appointment as Driver with effect from 16.1.2009 was not in his knowledge but otherwise he was duly selected like Krishan, he ought to have been offered appointment from due date i.e. 16.1.2009, whereas he has been given appointment with effect from 12.11.2013. 8. Interestingly, in the case at hand, petitioner was though offered appointment in the year 2009, but he failed to join even in the year 2012, he was again called for training but he never turned up. In the year 2013, respondent Corporation on the representation of the petitioner, offered him appointment on 12.11.2013. Since, the petitioner joined on 12.11.2013, there is otherwise no occasion to allow the prayer to grant him seniority with effect from 2009, when he was offered appointment alongwith person namely Krishan. 9. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that the petitioner has approached the court of law after an inordinate delay of five years and there is no explanation qua the delay. 10. 9. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that the petitioner has approached the court of law after an inordinate delay of five years and there is no explanation qua the delay. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, 2014 AIR SCW 6519, held that relief cannot be extended to the persons who have approached the Court after long delay, that too, who are fence-sitters. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the judgment herein: "24. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated June 22, 1987. The respondents before us did not challenge these cancellation orders till the year 1996, i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined the service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only there was unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appointment to give them the appointment as of today, i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above." 11. Even Division Bench of this Court, while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, has held in LPA No.604 of 2011, titled Karan Singh Pathania vs. State of H.P. and Others that “fencer cannot be held entitled to any relief.” 12. Even Division Bench of this Court, while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, has held in LPA No.604 of 2011, titled Karan Singh Pathania vs. State of H.P. and Others that “fencer cannot be held entitled to any relief.” 12. Otherwise also, S.21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides a limitation of one year for approaching the court, after accrual of cause of action, whereas, in the present case, petitioner has approached the court of law in the year 2016, i.e. three years after joining the post and seven years, after accrual of cause of action in 2009, when appointment was given to similarly situate person i.e. Krishan. 13. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.