JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 30.08.1989 vide Annexure-12 by which he has been regularized as a Tax Collector and seeks for a direction to regularize his services as Jr. Clerk as he has discharged duty and responsibilities as NMR Clerk w.e.f.1989 and release all consequential service benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner was selected following an interview conducted by opposite party nos. 3 and 4 and was appointed as NMR Clerk on 29.5.1981 and from that date he has been discharging his duty. To substantiate the same, the petitioner referred to various documents indicating that he was discharging duty of NMR Clerk assigned to him from time to time. Therefore, he seeks for regularization of his services as NMR clerk but the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 called upon him to appear in an interview and he having become successful, his services have been regularized as Tax Collector instead of Jr. Clerk, as claimed by him. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner having been selected for the post of NMR Clerk and discharged the nature of duty assigned to him as a clerk, subsequent regularization following an interview as Tax Collector pursuant to Annexure-12 is misconceived one inasmuch as the petitioner claims for regularization of his services as Jr. Clerk instead of Tax Collector and release of consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 4. Mr. S. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 states that the petitioner was considered for the post of Jr. Clerk in the year 1981 but the selection committee did not find him suitable and subsequently he appeared for the post of Typist, wherein he also did not come out successful. But subsequently he was allowed to continue as NMR staff as per the relevant service rules, therefore the petitioner cannot claim a regular post when his initial recruitment is irregular one. It is stated that the petitioner having become unsuccessful in the interview cannot claim for regularization as Jr. Clerk. Mr. Rath also disputes that the petitioner discharged the duty of Jr. Clerk as claimed by him. It is stated that the petitioner having become unsuccessful in the interview cannot claim for regularization as Jr. Clerk. Mr. Rath also disputes that the petitioner discharged the duty of Jr. Clerk as claimed by him. The petitioner having become unsuccessful in the interview conducted for the post of Jr. Clerk, the authority took a decision to fill up the vacant post of Tax Collector from the existing NMR employees having minimum qualification of matriculation. Accordingly, all the illegible candidates including the petitioner were considered for the post of Tax Collector, for which the petitioner appeared before the selection committee on 29.8.1989 along with other eligible candidates and as per his performance, he was regularized in the post of Tax Collector and pursuant to Annexure-12, the petitioner discharged duty and responsibility as a Tax Collector from the date of such appointment on regular basis. Therefore, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot claim that his services should be regularized as Jr. Clerk instead of Tax Collector. 5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly the petitioner was initially appointed as an NMR employee and he was allowed to discharge the duty and responsibility of Clerk at some point of time but that ipso facto cannot entitle him to claim that he should be absorbed on regular basis a Jr. Clerk. Taking into consideration his past experience he may have a right to be considered for the post but he cannot claim as a matter of principle that he should be absorbed as Jr. Clerk as claimed by him. In any case, when in the interview conducted for absorption on regular basis as Jr. Clerk, the petitioner could not come out successful and even subsequently in the interview conducted for the post of Typist, also he could not come out successful, he cannot claim that he should be regularized as Jr. Clerk. The authority have considered his past service, experience and also qualification and called upon him to appear before the selection committee for absorption on regular post of Tax Collector, wherein the petitioner come out successful and accordingly the impugned letter under Annexure-12 was issued regularizing his services against the post of Tax Collector pursuant to which he joined and continued as such till date. Having accepted the letter in Annexure-12, the petitioner cannot turn around and ask for regularization as Jr. Clerk. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner’s services have been regularized by following due procedure of selection pursuant to which he has already joined in the said post and discharged duty, subsequent claim made for regularization of his service as Jr. Clerk, he having not come out successful in an interview held thereof, the benefit cannot be admissible to him and the same is unwarranted one. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claim for regularization of services of petitioner against the post of Jr. Clerk therefore fails and accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed. However, there would be no order to costs.