Judgment :- Chitambaresh, J. 1. Writ Appeal No. 2843/2009 is filed by the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd. and Writ Appeal No. 2844/2009 is filed by the State. The controversy centres around the regularisation in service of respondents 1 to 3 as Assistant Managers in Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC for short). The KTDFC had issued Exts.P10, P11 and P12 orders regularising the service of respondents 1 to 3 on the basis of Exts.P7, P8 and P9 orders of the government. The government thereafter by Ext.P13 order cancelled Ext.P9 order of regularisation which was challenged by respondents 1 to 3 in WP(C) No. 5102/2007 on the file of this Court. The State had filed Ext.P14 counter affidavit therein where it was inter alia averred as follows: "The petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts after a due selection process. Communal reservation including SC/ST reservation was followed in the selection procedure." This court by Ext.P15 judgment quashed Ext.P9 order on the short ground that it was done without notice to respondents 1 to 3 however giving liberty to initiate proceedings afresh. 2. Ext.P16 is the order passed afresh by the government after due notice to respondents 1 to 3 on the basis of which Exts.P18 and similar orders of termination were passed. The services of respondents 1 to 3 were accordingly terminated by KTDFC with effect from 12.09.2007. This was again the subject matter of WP(C) No. 27993/2007 on the file of this court culminating in Ext.P19 judgment. It was inter alia held therein as follows: "In my view, the petitioners stand on a different footing. The petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis, but after undergoing a selection process. No doubt, the term of appointment of the petitioners was limited to one year in the first instance. But the petitioners had continued in service even after the expiry of one year and it is thereafter that the government by order dated 22.02.2006 directed the petitioners to be regularised in service. In my view, the petitioners' appointment cannot be considered as illegal and therefore, the order passed by the government on 22.02.2006, according sanction for the petitioners being absorbed into regular service cannot be considered as per se void. This seems to be a crucial distinction between the petitioners on the one hand and the other persons, who were engaged on contract/daily wages basis, on the other. This seems to be a crucial distinction between the petitioners on the one hand and the other persons, who were engaged on contract/daily wages basis, on the other. I also take note of Ext.P17 counter affidavit filed by the Corporation in the earlier writ petition, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioners were appointed after due selection process and that the principles of communal reservation were observed in the original appointment of the petitioners". Ext.P16 order was however set aside by Ext.P19 judgment on the sole ground that the reasons mentioned therein were not found in the preceding notice issued for hearing. 3. Ext.P20 notice was subsequently issued by the government which was responded to by Ext.P21 reply by respondents 1 and 2 culminating in Ext.P22 order. The government by Ext.P22 order declined regularisation in service of respondents 1 to 3 in KTDFC. Ext.P23 notification was consequentially issued inviting applications for appointment and the same was challenged by respondents 1 to 3. The learned single Judge has by the impugned judgment directed respondents 1 to 3 to be reinstated in service with retrospective effect without monetary benefits. The contention now urged on behalf of the appellants are two fold and they are as follows: (i) The post against which respondents 1 to 3 were subsequently regularised were not in existence at the time they were initially engaged. (ii) There were no recruitment rules in KTDFC when respondents 1 to 3 were initially engaged in service. The learned single Judge has rightly found that the services of respondents 1 to 3 were ordered to be regularised by Ext.P9 order after the posts were created by Ext.P7 order. The learned single Judge was also justified in holding that the government had directed the regularisation in service of respondents 1 to 3 fully realising that the recruitment rules were not in force. An instance of the earlier Assistant Manager who had been appointed prior to the recruitment rules and later promoted as Managing Director after the rules was duly taken note of. 4. Even otherwise the appellants cannot approbate and reprobate and they are estopped from canvassing the plea now affidavit. A reference in this connection to the recent decision in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India Vs. DG of Civil Aviation [(2011) 5 SCC 435] is apposite. 4. Even otherwise the appellants cannot approbate and reprobate and they are estopped from canvassing the plea now affidavit. A reference in this connection to the recent decision in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India Vs. DG of Civil Aviation [(2011) 5 SCC 435] is apposite. It is held therein as follows: "The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel -the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inhers in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stand and prolong proceedings unnecessarily (vide Babu Ram Vs. Indra Pal Singh [(1998) 6 SCC 358], P.R. Deshpande Vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti [(1998) 6 507] and Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Golden Chariot Airport [2010 SCC 422]." (emphasis supplied). The appellants cannot resile from the pleadings in Ext.P14 counter affidavit on the basis of which Ext.P15 and P19 judgments were rendered. The appellants are estopped from raising an inconsistent plea now in the appeals to the effect that there were no sanctioned posts for regularisation in service for respondents 1 to 3. The appellants have been blowing hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolonging proceedings by this third round of litigation. 5. The Writ Appeals are devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed however without costs.