JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. By way of this intra court appeal, appellant seeks to challenge correctness and validity of the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.12908/2010 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that learned Single Judge fell in error of law in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the Division Bench while granting liberty vide order dated 26.11.2009 in DB Civil Special appeal No.781/1998 did not set aside the order dated 11.02.1998 passed in the writ petition. His submission is that the order of the Division Bench clearly implies that the order of learned Single Judge was nullified and if such an interpretation is placed on the order of the Division Bench, the very purpose of grant of liberty would be completely nullified. 4. Even if for the sake of argument we accept the submission, we find that in the present case as against selection made in the year 1995, the writ petition was filed in the year 1996 without impleading the candidates, who were selected and appointed. When the writ petition was dismissed in the year 1998, writ appeal was preferred and in the writ appeal liberty was granted on 26.11.2009 to file fresh writ petition now impleading those who were selected and appointed. The writ petition which was filed in the year 2010 alone can be said to be a properly constituted petition but it has to be seen that challenge to the selection of other candidates was for the first time raised only in the year 2010 i.e. 15 years after the selection and appointments were made. 5. That in our opinion, without anything more, is sufficient to deny any relief to the writ appellant with regard to his non-selection. 6. Though number of arguments on merits of the case have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant submitting that the appellant was more meritorious and denial of selection and appointment would be arbitrary, in our opinion, the appellant has to thank himself for laying challenge to the process of selection without impleading the necessary parties while filing writ petition in 1996 and filing the fresh petition 15 years after the selection by impleading selected candidates. 7. We find that learned Single Judge has also assigned additional reasons for not entertaining writ petition. 8. 7. We find that learned Single Judge has also assigned additional reasons for not entertaining writ petition. 8. In the context of aforesaid consideration, at this distance of time we are not inclined to allow the appeallant to lay challenge to the process of selection of those who have been appointed 15 years before. It is stated at the Bar by learned counsel for the appellant that in subsequent recruitment year, the appellant was selected and appointed and the effect of denial of relief in this case would only result in losing seniority had he been selected in the first selection process. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.