Judgment :- The Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records of the second respondent dated 12. 2003 passed in Proc.No.11020/Estt/B.2/2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner retrospectively with effect from his initial date of appointment on 26. 1969 and consequently promote him to the post of Technician on par with his immediate junior with full monetary benefits, arrears of pay and other consequential service benefits. 2. The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 12. 2003 which reads as follows:- "Thiru S.Thainese, Attender, Deans office, Madras Veterinary College is requested to furnish undertaking to the effect that he cannot claim any service benefits for the purpose of retrospective promotion, etc. in TNUVAS., so as to send the proposal for retrospective regularization to the Special Officer, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Chennai." 3. On going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, according to the writ petitioner, he was working as a Clerk and then as Attendant in Madras Veterinary College Hostel from 26. 1969. Thereafter, he was appointed as Attendant in the Directorate of Veterinary Education and Research on 6. 1975. In para 5 of the affidavit, petitioner states that his service was regularised with effect from 12. 1976. Petitioner now claims that he should be regularised from the date of joining the service in the Veterinary Education and Research Department on 6. 1975 and not from 12. 1976. He relies upon G.O.Ms.No.191 Public dated 2. 1962. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, the Registrar of Tamil Nadu Veterinary Animal Sciences University. On going through the counter-affidavit and the typeset of papers furnished by the respondent, it comes to light that the writ petitioner has suppressed many vital facts and has filed the writ petition bereft of material particulars so as to get some relief based on the innocuous order passed by the second respondent Dean. The prayer sought for in the writ petition and the order under challenge is of no relevance according to the second respondent. Second respondent is not competent authority to pass the order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits the following facts for consideration of the court. On 112. The prayer sought for in the writ petition and the order under challenge is of no relevance according to the second respondent. Second respondent is not competent authority to pass the order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits the following facts for consideration of the court. On 112. 1978 G.O.Ms.No.2000 was passed whereby the Government decided to transfer the Veterinary Education and Research Department to be brought under the control of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, in short TNAU with effect from 12. 1976. The services of all the staff right from the Professor to Last Grade Employees including the temporary employees were transferred to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the names of the petitioner finds place at serial No.4 in temporary employees (miscellaneous) under the head Attendants in Annexure III. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.2426 dated 212. 1980 was passed. In G.O.Ms.No.2426, para 4 is relevant, which reads as follows:- "4. The temporary employees (General) and the temporary employees (Miscellaneous) and all the other temporary persons, working in the Sheep Breeding Research Stations at Sandynallah and Mecheri referred to in Annexure III to the G.O. second read above shall be treated as having been appointed in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University direct on or after 12. 1976." Copy of the G.O.Ms.No.2426 has been marked to all the competent authorities including the Pay and Accounts Officer. The Registrar, TNAU, based on the above said G.O., passed a proceedings on 22. 1982, where it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is taken to be in the service of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University on and after 12. 1976 and his service is regularised from such date. It is also stated that his original date of joining service is 6. 1975. In the said proceedings, the following portion is relevant for the present case:- "The following individuals have satisfied the adhoc qualification for appointment to L.G.G.S. Cadre and hence their services have been regularised with effect from 12. 76 and placed on probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years on duty. *1. Thiru S.Thainese, Attendant 2. Thiru M.Jayaraj, Attendant 3. Thiru K.Pramasivam, Attendant Their pay may be fixed in the revised scales with effect from 4. 78 as per G.O.Ms.No.2340 Agri.(AU.II) dt.180. 76 and placed on probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years on duty. *1. Thiru S.Thainese, Attendant 2. Thiru M.Jayaraj, Attendant 3. Thiru K.Pramasivam, Attendant Their pay may be fixed in the revised scales with effect from 4. 78 as per G.O.Ms.No.2340 Agri.(AU.II) dt.180. " *Writ Petitioner This proceeding has been communicated to all the individuals through the Dean of Madras Veterinary College, where the petitioner was working at the relevant time. 6. Thereafter, consequent to the regularization as stated above, the petitioner has been working in the TNAU. He has been receiving all emoluments based on the G.O.No.2426 and the proceedings dated 22. 1982 referred to above. The regularization and the pay fixation is consequent to the above said G.O. The petitioner is aware of the same. All these proceedings have not been referred to in the present affidavit. The vital materials which are to the knowledge of the petitioner have been deliberately suppressed. 7. Petitioner made a representation in the year 1992 after more than 10 years from the date of proceedings of the Registrar, TNAU to regularise the service with retrospective effect and that was considered and rejected by the Secretary to Government on 211. 1996 referring the above said G.O.Ms.No.2000 dated 112. 2008 and G.O.Ms.No.2426 dated 212. 1980. It has been clearly stated in the said proceedings dated 211. 1996 that no promotion with retrospective effect was given to anyone. 8. The petitioner to overcome the lapses has innocuously made a representation to the Dean, the second respondent and obtained nebulous and incoherent communication and based on the said internal communication dated 12. 2003 has approached this court for the relief of regularization with retrospective effect from 6. 1975. 9. On going through the documents submitted by the respondent it is clear that the transfer of the Directorate of Veterinary Education and Research to the control of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the regularization of all the employees from the Professors to the Last Grade employees including temporary employees was ordered pursuant to the two Government Orders, namely, G.O.Ms.No.2000 dated 112. 1978 and G.O.Ms.No.2426 dated 212. 1980. The pay also has been fixed after regularization on 12. 1976. The petitioner has been receiving emoluments based on the said proceedings without challenge. To the knowledge of the petitioner, he was regularised with effect from 12. 1976. 1978 and G.O.Ms.No.2426 dated 212. 1980. The pay also has been fixed after regularization on 12. 1976. The petitioner has been receiving emoluments based on the said proceedings without challenge. To the knowledge of the petitioner, he was regularised with effect from 12. 1976. The first representation was made only after 10 years from the date of transfer of the Directorate of Veterinary Education and Research to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University that has already been rejected. No further steps have been taken. The present writ petition filed in the year 2004 is only based on the internal communication of the Dean which has no relevance for the purpose of adjudication for the petitioners claim for regularisation with retrospective effect. 10. Having failed to challenge the G.O.Ms.No.2426 dated 212. 1980 and the proceedings of the Registrar dated 22. 1982 or the order dated 21. 1996 referred to earlier, the present writ petition has to fail on the ground of delay and laches. Further, there is gross suppression of material facts to the knowledge of the writ petitioner, which will disentitle him to any relief. 11. Finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.