Dr. M. K. Sharma, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents to give benefits of past services of the petitioner rendered to the respondent No. 2 as against a leave vacancy of a post of Lecturer. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in pursuance of an interview was appointed as a Lecturer in English as against the leave vacancy of Mrs. Suman Mathur. The said appointment letter is annexed to the petitioner and is dated 12. 11. 1987. The said letter specifically stipulates that the appointment is on ad hoc basis and against a leave vacancy, the post being held by Mrs. Suman Mathur. ( 3 ) IT is stated in the petition that the petitioner in that capacity worked as a Lecturer in English on ad hoc basis in the respondent college from 14. 11. 1987 upto the month of December, 1990. Mrs. Suman Mathur, however, resigned from the post of Lecturer in the respondent college on 21. 1. 1990 and a vacancy having arisen in the college, the same was advertised and the petitioner also suomitted his application. Pursuant to his application, an interview was held on 6. 12. 1990 for selection of a Lecturer to fill up the said vacant post in the Department of English of the respondent college. The petitioner was selected in the said interview and by order dated 7. 12. 1990 he was appointed as a Lecturer in English in the college. The appointment letter stipulates that the petitioner would be on probation fora period of one year with effect from the date of his joining and that the said period could further be extended by another 12 months, It was also stipulated that on confirmation of the appointment, the petitioner would be entitled to retirement benefits in terms of the Delhi University" Colleges Retirement Benefit Rules, 1970. ( 4 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioner was again subsequently appointed on 7. 12. 1990, the petitioner through the present writ petition seeks for the benefit of the past services rendered to the college upto 7. 12. 1990. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. S. K. Luthra, who is a Panel Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 1 as also the Counsel for respondent No. 2. 12. 1990. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. S. K. Luthra, who is a Panel Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 1 as also the Counsel for respondent No. 2. ( 6 ) THE terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 7. 12. 1990 which is on record makes it crystal clear that the aforesaid appointment was a fresh appointment and the same was subsequent to a fresh interview held. The petitioner also accepted the terms and conditions of the fresh appointment without any protest. He is, therefore, bound by the said terms. His earlier appointment was also against a leave vacancy and terms and conditions of the said appointment did not confer upon him the right to claim all benefits as is available to a regularly appointed Lecturer, for all intent and purposes the subsequent appointment being a fresh appointment the petitioner cannot have any right to claim for the benefits of the past services rendered with the respondent college from 12. 11. 1987. ( 7 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same accordingly stands dismissed.