S. B. SINHA, CJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. One Bollina Bhaskara Rao, petitioner in WP No. 8617 of 2000 was appointed as Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) of Yemagudem with effect from 21-3-1997 by order dated 20-1-1998 issued by the second respondent herein-Superintendent of Post Offices, Tadepalligudem. The said appointment was provisional in nature. The petitioner also gave a declaration to the effect that he would not claim for the post as his selection was purely provisional. The earlier incumbent of the said post M. Parameswara Rao was dismissed from service by order dated 29-12-1998 after conducting regular departmental enquiry. On that date itself, a recruitment notification was issued. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof the petitioners in both the writ petitions together with other eligible candidates applied for the said post. Avula Sri Ramakrishna, petitioner in WP No. 12748 of 2000 was appointed on the basis of the marks obtained by him in SCC Examination. The said appointment was questioned by Bollina Bhaskara Rao before the learned Tribunal on the ground that he had been provisionally appointed and allowed to continue. The learned Tribunal without going into the said question allowed the Original Application only on the ground that the recruitment notification should not have been issued on 29-12-1998 as the incumbent thereof had 45 days time at his disposal for preferring an appeal. The learned Tribunal, however, directed that the present incumbent of the said post shall continue. Bollina Bhaskara Rao filed the writ petition (WP No. 8617 of 2000) questioning only that part of the order whereas Avula Sri Rama Krishna, petitioner in WP No. 12748 of 2000 filed the writ petition questioning the other portion of the order. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the parties have advanced arguments at great length. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 8617 of 2000, having regard to the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment, the Bollina Bhaskara Rao should be allowed to continue as the appointment of the other writ petitioner had been cancelled. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 8617 of 2000, having regard to the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment, the Bollina Bhaskara Rao should be allowed to continue as the appointment of the other writ petitioner had been cancelled. On the other hand, the contention of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 12748 of 2000, is that Bollina Bhaskara Rao has no locus standi to question the appointment of Ramakrishna. We agree. As indicated hereinbefore, the appointment of Bollina Bhaskara Rao was purely provisional in nature. He was appointed not upon following the recruitment procedure. His appointment was till disciplinary proceedings against Parameswara Rao are completed. The date when the recruitment notification was issued was wholly immaterial and irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the Original Application. Bollina Bhaskara Rao, who also stands on the same footing along with other candidates, applied for the post in response to the notification dated 29-12-1998 inviting applications. He took his chance for regular appointment. Having failed to do so, in our considered view, he cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that he should have been absorbed in regular service. He is bound by the conditions of offer of appointment as also by his declaration. Even assuming that he shall be otherwise allowed to be continued in service, he must be held to have waived the said right as he himself participated in the selection process. A person, it is well known, cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. The question as to whether the aforementioned notification dated 29-12-1998 was premature or not thus is important in the aforementioned situation. Prematurity or otherwise of the said notification would have only been questioned by Parameswara Rao and not anybody else. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that WP No. 12748 of 2000 has to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. Consequently, WP No. 8617 of 2000 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.