JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21-11-1994, contained in Annexure 2 to this petition, by which the representation of the petitioner for withdrawing/quashing the order dated 10-4-1990, contained in Annexure 9, has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as Constable in Civil Police in 1959 and was promoted as Head Constable in 1967. He was further given promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector in 1975. On 2-10-1988 petitioner made a representation/ application (Annexure 3) to give him voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules") with certain conditions. However, the competent authority, vide letter dated 21-1-1989 (Annexure 4) informed petitioner that such a conditional application cannot be entertained under the provisions of Rule 244(1) of the Rules and if he is willing, he can move a fresh application containing no condition. Petitioner filed a fresh application on 2-2-1990 (Annexure 6) and sought voluntary retirement within the provisions of Rule 244(1) of the Rules. The said application was accepted vide order dated 10-4-1990 (Annexure 9), wherein it was stated that he would retire on 3-5-1990, i.e., after expiry of three months period of the notice. On 21-4-1990, petitioner made an application to withdraw the order dated 10-4-1990; however no order was passed on that application. Petitioner was given certain benefits vide orders dated 3-1-1991 and 18-12-1993 as is evident from Annexures I and 2 to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents. 3. It appears that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 10-4-1990 in an earlier writ petition. S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4132/1991. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21-9-1994, by which petitioner was permitted to file a fresh representation before the competent authority and the authority would decide it in accordance with law within a stipulated period. It appears that petitioner made a representation on 23-9-1994 (Annexure 1) wherein he had asked the authorities to quash the order dated 10-4-1990 for the reason that according to him the letter dated 2-2-1990 was also conditional and as the conditions had not been accepted by the respondents authority, the said acceptance would be bad in law. It appears that petitioner made a representation on 23-9-1994 (Annexure 1) wherein he had asked the authorities to quash the order dated 10-4-1990 for the reason that according to him the letter dated 2-2-1990 was also conditional and as the conditions had not been accepted by the respondents authority, the said acceptance would be bad in law. The said representation has been rejected vide impugned order dated 21-11-1994 (Annexure 2) on the ground that the petitioner had already been given the entire benefit of retirement and he had accepted the same without any protest and such an application cannot be considered. Moreover, his resignation was accepted without any terms and conditions. Hence this writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. Hemant Shreemali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. However, neither the copy of the earlier writ petition nor the copy of the order passed therein form the part of the record of this nor it has been produced at the time of hearing nor time was sought to produce it, so the genuineness of the allegation made by the petitioner cannot be ascertained. 6. It is not his case that the petitioner had a right or power to withdraw the resignation before it comes to effect as no such ground has been taken by the petitioner either in his representation or in this writ petition. His case simply had been that his application dated 2-2-1990 was also conditional and as the conditions had not been accepted, the acceptance of resignation is bad. 7. There is no force in this contention for the simple reason that petitioner has accepted the benefits of the order dated 10-4-1990. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Bus Service, Amaravati, AIR 1969 SC 329 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if an order is passed and the other side has accepted it, acted upon it and derived benefit and advantage from it, cannot be challenged. Petitioner has taken the benefit granted to him vide orders dated 3-1-1991 and 18-12-1993, as mentioned above, and, therefore, he cannot challenge these orders. Petitioner has taken the benefit granted to him vide orders dated 3-1-1991 and 18-12-1993, as mentioned above, and, therefore, he cannot challenge these orders. Moreover, it was explained to the petitioner by the competent authorities, vide letter dated 21-1-1989 (Annexure 4) that under the provisions of Rule 244(1) of the Rules, there is no provision to accept conditional resignation and he was given liberty to move an application without any condition and he filed it on 2-2-1990. Its acceptance would amount that it was accepted without any condition, as it is settled law that even the terms of contract have to be read in consonance with the statutory provisions and if a contract contains the terms contrary to the statutory provisions, it have to be ignored. (Vide Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration v. Managing Society, Goswami G.D.S.T.C., 1996 (7) SCC 665 : ( AIR 1996 SC 1759 ) and A. Mahadaswaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1996 (8) SCC 617 .It is settled proposition of law that a person can have a legitimate expectation only in consonance of the statutory provisions of the Rules and not in contravention of the same and in such a fact situation, it cannot be held that accepting his resignation without any terms and conditions was bad in law. 8. Even petitioner cannot succeed on the premises that he had a right to withdraw the resignation before it came into effect as the respondents had rightly rejected his representation for the reason that he had taken all the benefits of the order of retirement. 9. No other point is argued. Though too much have been mentioned in the petition about the privilege leave and half pay leave, but nothing has been agitated on these points at the time of hearing. I fail to understand why petitioner has not produced the documents of the earlier writ petition; at least he ought to have filed a copy of the order passed by the Court so that the authenticity of the averments of the petitioner regarding his first writ petition could be ascertained. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.Petition dismissed. *******