JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the statewide seniority list for regularisation as Plot Watcher. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the third respondent called the candidates for appointment to the post of Plot Watchers in the year 1981. The District Employment Exchange sponsored the names and after conducting interview, appointed the petitioner as Plot Watcher. 3. The petitioner was, thereafter, transferred from Thiruvannamalai Range to Polur Range, where he worked from 01.05.1992 to 31.03.1996. The petitioner was then transferred to Sathanur Range and worked there from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2000. The petitioner, this way has served for more than 19 years. 4. The State of Tamil Nadu a took policy decision, and passed various orders from time to time for regularisation of temporary/daily rated/ consolidated employees. 5. Vide G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 14.01.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 05.02.1987, all the Heads of the Departments were directed to regularise the services of the temporary employees who had rendered more than five years of service, but the service of the petitioner was not regularised. 6. On 08.03.1999, G.O.Ms.No.64 was issued directing the second respondent to prepare a statewide seniority list of Plot Watchers working in various ranges through out Tamil Nadu for regularisation. In pursuance of the orders passed by the second respondent, statewide seniority list was prepared. 7. The case of the petitioner is that some of the temporary Plot Watchers working along with the petitioner were transferred to Rural Development Department in the year 1989. The Rural Development Department did not permit them to join duty, therefore, they were placed under the temporary posting. 8. Those persons filed O.A. in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and as per the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the first respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.65 directing the second respondent to include the names of the persons who were transferred to Rural Development Department in the statewide seniority list drawn for regularisation. 9. The case of the petitioner is that when he was working in fourth respondent's range, the fourth respondent did not allow him to work, for the reason that the second respondent had given instructions to all the Rangers not to engage services of temporary Plot Watchers for the purpose of preparing statewide Seniority List. 10. 9. The case of the petitioner is that when he was working in fourth respondent's range, the fourth respondent did not allow him to work, for the reason that the second respondent had given instructions to all the Rangers not to engage services of temporary Plot Watchers for the purpose of preparing statewide Seniority List. 10. The fourth respondent sent the service particulars of the petitioner to the second respondent and against this illegal act of the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed representation with the third respondent on 06.06.2001 stating that he had rendered more than 19 years of service, but all of a sudden, without assigning any reason, the fourth respondent did not allow him to join duty. 11. The petitioner even met the second respondent personally in the year 2002. At that time, the petitioner was informed that his service particulars had been called for from the fourth respondent for inclusion of his name in the statewide seniority list, and his name will be included in the list, and his name will be considered for permanent appointment, when vacancies will arise in future. 12. The case of the petitioner is that while he has been waiting for his turn, the temporary Plot Watchers, who were working with the petitioner were regularised and made permanent. The petitioner again filed representation with the second respondent on 19.02.2008 requesting to appoint the petitioner as permanent Plot Watcher, but no reply was received thereto. Therefore, again a representation to include his name in the statewide seniority list was filed, but no action was taken on this representation, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by decision of this Court dated 04.11.2011 passed in batch of cases in W.P.No.14368 of 2009 [K. Elumalai Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. Secretary, Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others] wherein this Court issued the following direction: "11. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the writ petitions are disposed of, by issuing the following directions: i) The petitioners are directed to submit a fresh representation to the third respondent in their respective writ petitions, giving full particulars as regards their period of employment on temporary basis. The petitioner shall also enclose the copies of the service certificates said to have been issued to them. The petitioner shall also enclose the copies of the service certificates said to have been issued to them. ii) On receipt of the representation along with necessary enclosures, the third respondent shall examine the same, verify the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioners as well as the genuineness of the service certificate relied on by the petitioners and then submit a report through the Conservator of Forest for the consideration of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. iii) Based on such report, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest shall pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law and if it is found that the claim made by the petitioners are genuine then the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders for the purpose of inclusion of the name of such petitioners in the statewide seniority list for the purpose of considering them for regular employment. iv) The petitioners shall submit the representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v) On receipt of the representations, the third respondent in all the writ petitions shall consider the same as directed above and submit their report through the Conservator of Forest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representations. vi) Based on the such report submitted, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest shall pass orders as indicated above within a reasonable time. vii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs." 14. The reading of the judgment shows that this Court, disposed of those writ petitions by giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make a representation which were directed to be considered by the State Government for taking decision. This decision therefore can not be said to be a precedent for the future. 15. However, on consideration, this Court finds the writ petition to be totally misconceived. The petitioner cannot claim regularisation in service, as admittedly, the petitioner is not in service and is not performing duty since 2001. 16. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty, he did not challenge the order and decided to wait for drawing of the seniority list. 17. It is the admitted case that the seniority list was prepared sometime in the year 2001, in pursuance to direction issued on 08.03.1999. 18. 16. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty, he did not challenge the order and decided to wait for drawing of the seniority list. 17. It is the admitted case that the seniority list was prepared sometime in the year 2001, in pursuance to direction issued on 08.03.1999. 18. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2009 (i.e.) after ten years of cause of action, to challenge the non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the statewide seniority list. The writ petition therefore is highly belated and deserves to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches. 19. It may be also noticed that the petitioner has not placed on record scheme framed for regularisation to show whether the petitioner was eligible for the regularisation of services. In the absence of any legal right for regularisation, the petitioner cannot seek a direction for inclusion of his name in the statewide seniority list after ten years of its preparation. The writ petition is highly belated and also discloses no cause of action for the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction after he ceased to be in service from 2001. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.