ORDER : Avneesh Jhingan, J. The review petition is accompanied by an application for condoning the delay of 3078 days. 2. The brief facts are that candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Constable in Central Bureau of Investigation was cancelled. The Original Application (for short 'OA') filed by the petitioner before Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') was dismissed on 28.01.2002. The writ petition was dismissed on 03.07.2015. The operational part is quoted below:- "After going through the complete record of the case and the facts which are available in the order of the ld. Tribunal impugned dt.28.01.2002, we do not find any error which may call for our interference at such a later stage in regard to the selection process of 2001 after the lapse of 15 years. Consequently, the instant petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed." 3. Now in the year 2024 review petition is filed accompanied by application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal rejected the OA relying upon the decision of the Tribunal passed by Ernakulum Bench and that order was set aside by the Kerala High Court in the year 2003. The contention is that the petitioner was making representation to the respondent to treat him at par with candidates who succeeded before Kerala High Court, hence there is delay. 5. The writ petition was dismissed in 2015. The petitioner chose not to challenge the decision of this Court and was a fence sitter. 6. In the application of condonation of delay, there are no details of representations made and no dates have been mentioned. Even otherwise filing of the representation in itself shall not extend limitation for availing the remedy. 7. The Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 459 has held as under:- "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate." [emphasis] 8. Further the Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another reported in 2008 (17) SCC 448 , has held as under: "It was its duty to prefer appeals before the Court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and 'do not slumber over their rights." 9. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically in absence of sufficient cause. Considering that there is inordinate delay of more than 3000 days and there is no explanation worth acceptance pleaded in the application for condonation. No case is made out for condoning the delay, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed as time barred.