Judgment :- P.R. Shivakumar,J. The correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 212. 2004 dismissing the W.P.No.11739 of 2002 filed by the writ appellant herein is put in issue in the present writ appeal. 2. The writ appellant herein had filed the above said writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of Certioraified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent passed in his proceedings in Proc.No.O.Mu.12035/01/E5 dated 23.01.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages and other consequential service benefits. .3. It was contended by the writ appellant/writ petitioner that he was originally appointed as a Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in the year 1981 and he was working continuously as such; that some of the fair price shops functioning under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited were transferred to the Co-operative Department during the year 1987-1988; he was asked to exercise an option either to be transferred to the Co-operative department or to be retained in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited; that despite his refusal to exercise his option to be transferred to the Co-operative Department and his expression of willingness to continue in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, he was relieved from the post; that his repeated representations to the respondent made thereafter went in vain and that at last on 23.01.2002, the respondent passed the impugned order stating that the request of the writ appellant/writ petitioner for issuing reposting orders in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited could not be complied with as he was transferred to the administrative control of the Co-operative Department along with the fair price shop during the year 1987-1988 based on the option exercised by him to be transferred to the Co-operative department and the request had been made belatedly. 4. 4. Contending that no final order either ousting the writ appellant/writ petitioner from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited or directing him to join duty was ever passed; that in view of the absence of such specific order, the petitioner should be deemed to have been in service and that hence the impugned order rejecting the request of the writ appellant/writ petitioner for issuing an order re-posting the writ appellant/writ petitioner in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited was unsustainable, the writ appellant/writ petitioner had prayed for the relief as indicate above. .5. The writ petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter statement contending that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to the effect that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a clerk in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited was false; that on the other hand, he was appointed only as a Trainee Sales Assistant at Veppalampatty Village level fair price shop; that as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.NO.1204 Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.08.1987 orders were issued for transferring all the village level fair price shops to the Co-operative Department with effect from 010. 1987; that the Government order itself had provided that the employees of the respondent cooperation could exercise an option either to go to the Co-operative department or to remain in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited itself; that the writ appellant/writ petitioner by virtue of the above said Government Order opted to go over to the Co¬operative department; that by virtue of such exercise of option by the petitioner he was transferred to the Co-operative department and was relieved vide Rc.No.19516/87/E3 dated 010. 1987 from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited; that the writ appellant/writ petitioner sent a letter on 110. 1987 requesting for his reposting in the respondent corporation and that since he was already transferred to the Co-operative department and relieved from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, his request could not be accepted. A specific averment had been made in the counter affidavit that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was relieved from the respondent corporation to work under the Co-operative department only after getting a willingness letter from him. A specific averment had been made in the counter affidavit that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was relieved from the respondent corporation to work under the Co-operative department only after getting a willingness letter from him. It was also contended by the respondent that there was no fair price shops functioning under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and hence he could not be accommodated as a Sales Man in the respondent corporation. 6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the submissions made on both sides, accepted the contention of the respondent corporation that the petitioner exercised his option to be transferred to the Co-operative department and hence his request for reposting in the respondent corporation was rightly rejected by the respondent. The learned Single Judge also held that the writ appellant/writ petitioner should be non-suited on the ground of laches as he had approached the Court belatedly. The correctness of the said order is challenged by the writ appellant/writ petitioner in this writ appeal. 7. We have heard the submission of Ms.N.Selvi learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Madan for Mr.S.Ramachandran learned counsel appearing for the respondent and paid our anxious consideration to the same. We have also perused the materials available on record. .8. Contending that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 as a clerk in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and was working as such till he was relieved in the year 1987 when the village level fair price shops were transferred to the Co¬operative Department; that despite the petitioners unwillingness to exercise his option in favour of his transfer to the Co-operative department, he was relieved from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and that his subsequent request for reposting was erroneously turned down by the respondent, the writ appellant/writ petitioner has approached the Court praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus. 9. 9. The relief sought for in the writ petition has been negatived by the learned Single Judge on three grounds ; 1) the writ appellant/writ petitioner was transferred to the Co-operative department in accordance with G.O.Ms.NO.1204 Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.08.1987 based on the option exercised by him to be transferred to the Co-operative department; 2) the contention of the writ appellant/writ petitioner that on 15.09.1987 itself, i.e. even before he was relieved from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited he had given a letter asking for reposting in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation itself was not substantiated by the petitioner by producing a copy of the said letter; And 3. The writ appellant/writ petitioner had approached the Court belatedly and there was laches on the part of the writ appellant/writ petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the writ appellant contended that the writ appellant/writ petitioner after having been relieved from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, was left in lurch without any employment and hence he had to approach the State Legal Aid Committee at the first instance and then the Taluk Legal Aid Committee, Palacode for necessary assistance; that though a letter was sent by the Palacode Taluk Legal Aid Committee to the respondent on 27.08.1990 itself, no order was passed till 23.01.2002 on which date the impugned order was passed and that immediately thereafter the writ appellant/writ petitioner approached the Court for necessary relief and hence there was no question of latches. .11. We are not in a position to accept the above said contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ appellant/writ petitioner. Admittedly, the writ appellant/writ petitioner was relieved from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited on 010. 1987 and he seems to have approached the Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid and Advice Board only in the year 1990 where upon the matter was referred to the Taluk Legal Aid Committee on 16.07.1990. The Taluk Legal Aid Committee sent a letter on 27.08.1990 to the respondent Regional Manager for taking necessary action. Even though no order was passed for more than 11 years, the writ appellant/writ petitioner was keeping quiet and at last chose to submit a letter on 112. 2001 seeking an order reposting him as Bill Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Only based on the said letter dated 112. Even though no order was passed for more than 11 years, the writ appellant/writ petitioner was keeping quiet and at last chose to submit a letter on 112. 2001 seeking an order reposting him as Bill Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Only based on the said letter dated 112. 2001 the impugned order dated 23.01.2002 came to be passed turning down the request made by the writ appellant/writ petitioner for reposting him as Bill Clerk in the respondent Corporation. There was a delay of more than 2½ years in approaching the Legal Aid Committee. There was also inaction on the part of the petitioner for more than 11 years after the Legal Aid Committee wrote a letter to the respondent to consider the request of the writ appellant/writ petitioner for reposting. There is no explanation for the inaction on the part of the petitioner for so long a period and hence we do not find any defect or infirmity in the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding latches. .12. The contentions of the writ appellant/writ petitioner that he was relieved against the option exercised by him expressing his unwillingness to go to the Co-operative department and that his letter dated 15.09.1987 request reposting in the respondent corporation were erroneously rejected, cannot be countenanced. The respondent has put in a counter statement clearly denying the averments made by the writ appellant/writ petitioner that he was appointed as a clerk and was relieved against his option. It has also been contended by the respondent in the counter statement that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was appointed only as a Trainee Sales Assistant at Veppalampatty Village level fair price shop; that pursuant to G.O.Ms.NO.1204 Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.08.1987 he exercised his option to be transferred to the Co-operative department and that only pursuant to such an option he was relived on 010. 1987. This contention raised by the respondent in the counter statement has not been denied by the writ appellant/writ petitioner by filing a reply affidavit. The writ appellant/writ petitioner has also failed to produce any document to show that he was appointed as a clerk or he was relieved against the option exercised by him. The contention of the respondent that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was transferred to the Co-operative department on 010. 1987 and was relieved on 010. 87 has not been disputed. The writ appellant/writ petitioner has also failed to produce any document to show that he was appointed as a clerk or he was relieved against the option exercised by him. The contention of the respondent that the writ appellant/writ petitioner was transferred to the Co-operative department on 010. 1987 and was relieved on 010. 87 has not been disputed. As such, the contention raised on behalf of the writ appellant/writ petitioner as if he had addressed a letter to the respondent on 15.09.1987 itself for .reposting in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited cannot be believed for the simple reason that there cannot be any prayer for reposting even before the order of transfer was issued. Further more, the writ appellant/writ petitioner was not able to produce a copy of the said letter dated 15.09.1987 to show that even before the order of transfer he had expressed his willingness to be retained in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited itself. A copy of the said letter alleged to have been submitted on 15.09.1987 has not been produced even before us during the hearing of the writ appeal. Therefore, we do not find any scope for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.