Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the order dated 12.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2835 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judger has dismissed the petition. 2. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the original petitioner, for all purpose, was appointed as the helper and merely because he was posted as a trainee, that should not result into deprivation of the benefits of continuity in service. He submitted that in cases of similarly situated trainee helpers, Mr. A.R. Chauhan and Mr. Dinesh Patel, such aspect was considered by the Industrial Tribunal and the award has been passed to give the benefits from the date on which they entered as trainees. He also contended that in case of the Deputy Engineer and Junior Engineer, such was also permitted by the Board vide order dated 4th/6th May, 2002. He, therefore, contended that the benefits could have been given and as were not given the petition was preferred, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the appeal. 4. We may record that the appellant has accepted the appointment as back as in the year 1978 and for the first time, the dispute, even if it is considered from the date of filing of the petition, has been arisen in the year 1994, roughly after about 16 years from the entry in service. Therefore, principles of delay and laches would operate against the appellant to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Apart from the above, the appellant has voluntarily accepted the conditions at the time when he joined the service as a trainee and also at the time when the regular appointment was offered to him from the date of joining as a regular helper. Now, the appellant cannot be heard to say after 16 years that it was to deprive the appellant of the benefits, he was placed as trainee. Further, the basis of the alleged policy of the discrimination is one award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and another is the office order by the Electricity Board. Now, the appellant cannot be heard to say after 16 years that it was to deprive the appellant of the benefits, he was placed as trainee. Further, the basis of the alleged policy of the discrimination is one award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and another is the office order by the Electricity Board. In the award of the Industrial Tribunal as well as in the office order of the Electricity Board, there is clear recoding of the fact that the regular post was vacant and the appointment as trainee was given on regular basis. There is no material in the present proceedings to show the said position. Therefore, unless and until the complete parity of similarly situated is satisfactorily demonstrated before this Court, the ground of discrimination cannot be maintained. Further, even if one has to go into the said aspect of availability of the permanent post or otherwise, at the relevant point of time, fulfledged fact finding inquiry is required, which cannot be undertaken by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Further, the learned Single Judge has found that when the appointment was as a trainee, he cannot be conferred benefits of regular helper by considering the continuity, nor any extra benefits can be read, merely because there was deduction of provident fund while the appellant worked as the trainee. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the petition does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. P P P P P