Judgment :- These two writ petitions are filed by the persons who are initially appointed as “Technical Assistants” later re-designated as “Lecturers” in the respondent University. 2. The prayer in the writ petition No.34243 of 2007 is to set aside the order dated 17. 2000 passed by the University in and by which they were informed that the re-designation as “Lecturers” can only be prospective. 3. In the second writ petition No.34244 of 2007, the prayer is for a direction to the respondent to forbear from filling up the post of Readers and Professors in the respondent University without considering the case of the petitioners and appointing them in the said posts. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr. S. Silambanan, senior counsel appearing for Ms. C. Uma and Mr. Kandavadivel Doraiswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University and have perused the records. 5. It is seen from the records produced that the petitioners were originally appointed as Technical Assistants by the respondent University. Subsequently, on their representation and also after getting the concurrence from the University Grants Commission, the respondent University re-designated them as Lecturers. 6. In the proceedings of the Syndicate of the University dated 17. 2000, which is impugned in one of the writ petitions, it was stated in Condition No.1 that the said candidate will be shown against the Substantive post of Technical Officer, but however, they will be required to perform the normal duties of the Lecturer apart from the duties and responsibilities assigned to the post of Technical Officer. 7. In condition No.2 of the said order, it is clearly stated that the ‘re-designation as Lecturer’ shall be prospective and in condition No.3, it is stated that the candidate shall qualify for any further promotion with reference to the date of redesignation as Lecturer and the past services will not count for any further advance in career. Further, in condition No.4, it is stated that the period of probation in the post of Lecturer was also prescribed. Further, in condition No.4, it is stated that the period of probation in the post of Lecturer was also prescribed. Earlier to this re-designation made by the respondent University, during 1996 and 2000, several writ petitions were filed before this Court by the Madras University Technical Staff Welfare Association represented by its General Secretary seeking for a direction to the University, that before they were redisgnated and given a specific term of appointment, either to stall the fresh selection of lecturers, readers, etc., or to redesignate the petitioners as Lecturers from the post of Technical Assistants. In none of the writ petitions, positive orders were issued in favour of the petitioners. However, after making repeated representations by the petitioners, by the impugned order, dated 17. 2000, the petitioners came to be redesignated subject to the conditions mentioned above. 8. The petitioners after completing their probation period, started making representations that their past service in the posts of Technical Assistants should be counted and taken into consideration for all the purposes, including promotion and career advance scheme. The petitioners also referred to the decision of the University, dated 7. 2004, wherein, it was resolved as per the recommendations of the three member committee, that one N.V.R. Kabali was redesignated as Assistant Director-cum-Reader with effect from 4. 1995 and Dr.N.Nagarajan as Project Officer-cum-Lecturer with effect from 4. 1995 taking into consideration the date of taking over the schemes by the University. It is further recited in the said proceedings, dated 7. 2004 that in consonance with the report of the three members committee and judgment of this Court in WP No.35286 of 2002 filed by Dr.N.V.R.Kabali, it was resolved that Dr.N.V.R.Kabali, Assistant Director cum Reader is placed as Head in charge of the Department of Adult and Continuing Education, taking into consideration of his date of joining i.e.8. 89. Relying upon this, the petitioner would contend that the same benefits were not extended to them by considering their past service. 9. However, Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University would contend that the case of Dr.N.V.R.Kabali and Dr.N.Nagarajan has no relevance and they are not Technical Assistants appointed by the University and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the said proceedings, dated 7. 2004. In any event, the present attempt of the petitioners to challenge their very re-designation as Lecturer which was given by proceedings dated 17. 2004. In any event, the present attempt of the petitioners to challenge their very re-designation as Lecturer which was given by proceedings dated 17. 2000 cannot be appreciated for two reasons. 10. Firstly, the University of Madras, after getting concurrence from the UGC, conferred them the benefit of re-designation and the scale attached to the post of Lecturers. Without that order, there was no right on the part of the petitioners to get re-designation because the post of Lecturer otherwise have to be done only by direct recruitment calling for applications on an all India basis. After having had the benefit of re-designation, it is not proper on the petitioners to turn round and challenge the very condition imposed in the appointment letter given in their favour. 11. Secondly, in the impugned proceedings, dated 17. 2000, the University of Madras has categorically imposed certain conditions, such as, the re-designation as Lecturer shall be prospective and also they shall qualify for any further promotion with reference to their date of re-designation as Lecturers and their past services will not count for any further advance in career. Thereafter, the petitioners have been working only pursuant to the above order and enjoying the benefits of the service. When their probation being declared and the consequential increments in new scale of pay, it is now too late for them to challenge the said order. 12. The ground taken in the writ petition with reference to the long delay of seven years in coming to this Court was only based upon their repeated representations to the University. In fact, even in the averment made in para 23 of the affidavit, there is no satisfactory explanation for the long delay in approaching this Court. The petitioners made representation to the Syndicate to reconsider the earlier decision and to confer them the benefits of past services. That itself cannot be a ground to condone such a long delay. In any event, apart from the ground of delay and laches, there is no right on the part of the petitioners to challenge the proceedings of the re-designation by invoking Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, having accepted the terms and conditions mentioned for such re-designation. That itself cannot be a ground to condone such a long delay. In any event, apart from the ground of delay and laches, there is no right on the part of the petitioners to challenge the proceedings of the re-designation by invoking Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, having accepted the terms and conditions mentioned for such re-designation. But the University has conferred certain benefits on the petitioners by taking into account their services rendered to the University and also relaxing the rule in their favour after getting concurrence from the UGC and redesignated them as lecturers. The petitioners have to stand or fall by such act of redesignation and now challenging the same after accepting the letter of redesignation that too after seven years is devoid of merits and misconceived. If the petitioners think that the University can grant such relief in terms of the power vested on the University, it is for them to move the University to get appropriate relief even to modify the earlier order. The Court will have to examine the legal right of the petitioners in respect of their seeking past services to be counted in the matter of redesignation and in the absence of such a right, this Court cannot grant such relief. The reliance placed by the petitioners in respect of NVR Kabali and Nagarajan has no direct bearing on the case of the petitioners. Hence, this plea is rejected. 13. This Court does not find any infringement of Articles 14 of 16 of the Constitution as prayed for in the writ petition in order to forbear the respondent from filling up the posts of Reader and Professor and there is no substance in the Writ Petitions. Because in the present case, the petitioners are working as Lecturers and their further promotion is for the posts of Reader and Professor, which even as per the University Statute, are the posts to be filled by way of Direct Recruitment and there is no promotional avenue. The petitioners have to compete with the outside candidates. If such is the rule, there is no direct right to get promoted to the post of Reader and Professor. Even in terms of the existing statutes of the University, there is no direct right to get promoted for the redesignated petitioners. The petitioners have to compete with the outside candidates. If such is the rule, there is no direct right to get promoted to the post of Reader and Professor. Even in terms of the existing statutes of the University, there is no direct right to get promoted for the redesignated petitioners. Therefore, only considering this fact, the University has called for the applications for filling up the said posts. For all the fore-going reasons, the Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.