JUDGMENT 1. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. The writ petition has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 05.09.2007 of the fourth respondent in so far it relates to not reckoning the services rendered by him from the date of his initial appointment viz., 15.05.1991. Consequently the appellant has also sought for a direction to regularise his services from the date of his initial appointment with all the consequential benefits. 2. The appellant was appointed in the year 1991 in the respondents establishment on a temporary and consolidated basis. The appellant made several representations to the respondents seeking to regularise his service by taking into consideration of such services rendered in the post. As the appellant's request was not considered, a writ petition in W.P.No.16247 of 2000 was filed before this Court. This Court, in and by order dated 24.09.2000, directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representations made by the appellant within the time prescribed therein. Thereafter, in and by the order dated 13.03.2001, the appellant was selected for the post of General Clerk (Grade-II) and posted at the Environment Cell. In the said order, the appellant has been intimated that no request for review of salary/scale offered would be entertained. It is also seen that prior to the order of appointment made on 13.03.2001, the appellant wrote a letter to the respondents. The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted hereunder. "Sir, I fully understand and appreciate that an organization like CPCL will have to consider various factors before conceding my request for regularisation of my services. I do not think that it is right on my part to ignore the organization's difficulties. I further realize and am conscious of the fact that I do not have a rightful claim for employment as I have been working only on temporary assignments. I once again reiterate that I forego my earlier claim of regularizing my services with effect from May 1990. I may kindly be provided an appointment prospectively and I waive all my earlier claim of backwages and attendance benefits. I also assure that since I have waived my claim I will not raise this claim once again before any forum at any point of time. I reiterate that I make this statement sincerely and fully conscious of the implications of such waiver." 3. I also assure that since I have waived my claim I will not raise this claim once again before any forum at any point of time. I reiterate that I make this statement sincerely and fully conscious of the implications of such waiver." 3. The respondent formulated a promotion policy on 09.01.2003. In pursuance of the said promotion policy, number of persons have been appointed in the regular vacancies on a permanent basis. The appellant made representations on 12.01.2003, 22.08.2004, 06.01.2005 and 29.06.2005, requesting the respondents to take into consideration of the services rendered by him from the year 1991. Thereafter, the order impugned was passed on 05.09.2007 promoting the appellant to Grade-III with effect from 01.01.2007. Challenging the said order, the appellant has come before this Court primarily contending that the services rendered by him from 1991 will have to be taken into consideration and the seniority will have to be fixed. 4. The learned single judge, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by holding that the appellant has not challenged the order dated 13.03.2001, by which, he has been selected as a fresh candidate. It was also observed that in the absence of any specific rule to the effect that the past services of an employee, even prior to the regular employment, would be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting his services in a permanent post, such a request cannot be considered. The learned single Judge has also dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant, having accepted the order of appointment in the year 2001, cannot challenge the subsequent order. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that a similarly placed person one Shri S.Gajendra Babu has been absorbed in the year 1991 and the appellant has been discriminated as against the said Shri S.Gajendra Babu. Had the appellant been appointed in the year 1991, he would have been promoted long back. The appellant could not challenge the order passed in the year 2001, in view of the then prevailing situations. The letter given by the appellant cannot be construed to take away his legal right. Applying the rule of fairness and the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution, the writ appeal will have to be allowed. The appellant could not challenge the order passed in the year 2001, in view of the then prevailing situations. The letter given by the appellant cannot be construed to take away his legal right. Applying the rule of fairness and the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution, the writ appeal will have to be allowed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would also submit that in pursuant to the promotion policy for non-supervisory employees introduced by the proceedings dated 09.01.2003, the persons, who were appointed subsequent to the appellant were promoted ahead of him. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for acquiescence, delay andlaches. The appellant is estopped from making such a plea before this Court. The writ petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable as he has not challenged the order dated 13.03.2001. The person by name Shri Ganjendra Babu stands on a different footing. He has been appointed in the year 1991 and his service prior to that period was not taken into account. The contention regarding the other employees having been promoted against the appellant has not been raised in the writ petition. They have been promoted based upon the promotion policy. The mode of appointment for them is different than that of the appellant. Further more, they have not been made as parties before this Court. Therefore the writ appeal will have to be dismissed. 7. The facts narrated above are not in controversy. Admittedly the appellant was appointed in a regular post in and by proceedings dated 13.03.2001. For the reasons known to the appellant, he did not make out any grievance in the said fresh appointment. In other words, the appellant has accepted the appointment. The order dated 13.03.2001 holds good even today. The appellant has given a letter to the respondents stating that he would not claim any right over the services rendered by him in a temporary capacity. Thereafter only the order dated 13.03.2001 has been passed. Now what is challenged is the order of promotion dated 05.09.2007 passed in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of acquiescence, delay andlaches. Merely by giving representations subsequently, the question of delay cannot be gotten over. The appellant indirectly seeks to set aside the order dated 13.03.2001 without even putting the said order into challenge. Now what is challenged is the order of promotion dated 05.09.2007 passed in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of acquiescence, delay andlaches. Merely by giving representations subsequently, the question of delay cannot be gotten over. The appellant indirectly seeks to set aside the order dated 13.03.2001 without even putting the said order into challenge. Such a course adopted by the appellant is impermissible in law. 8. As rightly held by the learned single Judge, there is absolutely no material to hold that the letter given by the appellant prior to his appointment order dated 13.03.2001 is created by the respondents. Even then, the appellant has not questioned the said order for number of years. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by taking contrary stand as he likes. The records would also reveal that Shri Gajendra Babu was not given the benefits of the service rendered by him in a temporary and casual basis. Further more, the appellant has not raised any contention regarding inter se seniority between himself and others before the learned single Judge. Even otherwise, the other employees have been appointed as per the Rules by following the due process of law and they have been placed in the respective position in accordance with the policy evolved by the respondents. Such a policy of the respondents has also not questioned before this Court. Those persons, whom the appellant alleges as his juniors, are also not made as parties. Therefore, the said contention deserves to be rejected. It is also an admitted fact that there is no rule or regulation providing for the appellant's past service as a temporary employee can be taken into consideration for fixing his seniority in a regular service. 9. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2012) 8 SCC 633 (State of Haryana vs. Vijay Singh) considered the said issue and it has set aside the direction issued by the High Curt in ordering re-fixation of seniority by counting the adhoc service. 10. Coming to the question of fairness, we do not find anything unfair on the part of the respondents. It is not as if the appellant has been discriminated against. There is no material to hold that the similarly placed persons to that of the appellant have been given more benefits than him. 10. Coming to the question of fairness, we do not find anything unfair on the part of the respondents. It is not as if the appellant has been discriminated against. There is no material to hold that the similarly placed persons to that of the appellant have been given more benefits than him. The said Shri Gajendra Babu stands in a different footing as he was appointed in the year 1991 in a permanent post. Therefore, from the point of view of fairness also, we do not find any merit in favour of the appellant. In fine, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.