JUDGMENT M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved against the dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by him by which the order impugned has been confirmed. 2. The appellant herein was appointed as a Assistant Jailor by way of direct recruitment through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 01.02.1985. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Deputy Jailor in the year 1991. While he was working in the said capacity, charges have been framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules vide order dated 20.7.1994. After conducting a thorough enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, vide G.O.(Ms)No.58, Home (Prison-I) Department, dated 27.1.1998. The said order of the disciplinary authority was challenged by the appellant before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2985 of 1998. The case was transferred to the High Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.35727 of 2006. In the meanwhile, the panel for the year 1996-97 was drawn in the year 2006. A person, by name, K.Anandan, was promoted to the post of Jailor. Thereafter, by order dated 30.10.2006 issued by way of Government Order under G.O.Ms.No.1041, Home (Prison-I) Department, persons working as seniors to the appellant were promoted to the post of Jailor in the year 1997-98. For the panel drawn for the promotional post in the year 1998-99, the appellant was once again overlooked as per order dated 12.10.2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.1433, Home (Prison-I) Department. By a further Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1434, Home (Prison-I) Department, passed on the very same day, some more persons were promoted. 3. Learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to set aside the punishment imposed on the appellant. A Government Order was issued on 30.4.2008, followed by another Government Order passed on the very same day in G.O.Ms.No.495, Home (Prison-I) Department promoting the appellant to the post of Jailor subject to the Writ Appeal to be filed against the order dated 29.10.2007 passed in W.P.No.35727 of 2006. The seniority of the appellant was fixed based upon the order of the learned single Judge and the appellant was promoted temporarily as Additional Superintendent of Prisons on 18.9.2008. 4. The Writ Appeal filed against the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 302 of 2008 was allowed on 6.8.2009. The seniority of the appellant was fixed based upon the order of the learned single Judge and the appellant was promoted temporarily as Additional Superintendent of Prisons on 18.9.2008. 4. The Writ Appeal filed against the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 302 of 2008 was allowed on 6.8.2009. The appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Apex Court, which was dismissed on 01.09.2009. Accordingly, the order of punishment imposed upon the appellant became final. 5. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.P.No.21797 of 2009 challenging the Government order passed in G.O.Ms.No.495 dated 30.4.2008 promoting the appellant only in the year 2001-02. In the Writ Petition, it was contended that the appellant ought to have been promoted by including him in the panel drawn for the relevant year 1996-97.The appellant also made a representation to the respondents to covert the charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Rules to that of one under Rule 17A. The request of the appellant was rejected on 22.1.2010 by the first respondent. The appellant raised all the grounds seeking to challenge the said order in the writ petition filed in W.P.No.35727 of 2006. The Writ Petition and the Miscellaneous Application filed were dismissed by the learned single Judge by passing a detailed order dated 23.12.2010. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the subject matter of earlier proceedings as confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court is different from the one before us. The respondents sought to have framed charges under Rule 17(a) of the Rules considering the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant. The respondents cannot make reliance upon the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 18.10.1993. Therefore, after the completion of two years from 27.1.1998, the appellant ought to have been included in the promotional panel. In support of the contention, learned senior counsel made reliance on the following judgments: 1. (2011) 4 MLJ (Mad) 1 (Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another Vs. V.Rani. 2. W.P.No.22975 of 2005 dated 08.12.2006 (A.Kaliyaperumal V. The State of Tamil Nadu and two others) 3. W.P.No.3558 of 2004 dated 05.09.2006 (G.Prakasam V. The Secretary to Government and three others) 4. W.P.No.19144 of 2004 dated 07.12.2004 (The Secretary to Government, Home police (SC) Department, Chennai V. S.Nithiyanandam and another) 7. V.Rani. 2. W.P.No.22975 of 2005 dated 08.12.2006 (A.Kaliyaperumal V. The State of Tamil Nadu and two others) 3. W.P.No.3558 of 2004 dated 05.09.2006 (G.Prakasam V. The Secretary to Government and three others) 4. W.P.No.19144 of 2004 dated 07.12.2004 (The Secretary to Government, Home police (SC) Department, Chennai V. S.Nithiyanandam and another) 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 18.10.1993 has not been set aside by the Honourable Full Bench. The appellant cannot question the charges framed after having lost upto the Honourable Apex Court and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for delay and latches. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 9. It is not in dispute that the charges were framed against the appellant under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charges had been framed as early as in the month of July, 1994. The appellant, for the reasons best known to him, did not choose to challenge the same. On the contrary, he participated in the enquiry. The Division Bench of this Court confirmed the punishment imposed on the appellant and it was also affirmed by the Honourable Apex Court. Now after more than 14 years, for the first time, by way of filing an application in M.P.No.1 of 2010, the said issue was sought to be raised by the appellant before the learned single Judge. This was sought to be done in pursuant to the representation made on 18.11.2009, which was rejected by the respondents on 22.1.2010. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the appellant cannot seek such a relief on the ground of delay, latches, acquiescence and estoppel. 10. The reliance made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant based on the judgments rendered by the Honourable Full Bench of this Court cannot be accepted as they cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. As stated above, the appellant has voluntarily participated in the enquiry. The question as to whether the allegations would warrant a charge under Rule 17(a) or 17(b) is not to be decided at this stage by us. As stated above, the appellant has voluntarily participated in the enquiry. The question as to whether the allegations would warrant a charge under Rule 17(a) or 17(b) is not to be decided at this stage by us. Further more, we do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge, who has considered the entire materials available on record. As contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, what was before the Honourable Full Bench was pertaining to the minor punishment. The appellant's case was rejected on the ground that he was not found suitable to be considered for promotion. The punishment undergone by the appellant was taken into account for coming to the said conclusion. It is not the case of the appellant that the promotional post is not on merit and ability. Therefore, even on that ground, we do not find any case in favour of the appellant. We also find that there is no explanation on the part of the appellant in not challenging the panels drawn for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The appellant ought to have raised all these grounds in the Writ Petition filed earlier in the W.P.No.35727 of 2006. It is a settled position of law that no one has got a right to seek promotion, but only seek a right to consider for promotion. The learned single Judge has considered the entire materials available on record and dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.