ORDER 1. Challenge to an order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-2) by which the contract appointment of the petitioner was terminated and seeking quashment of selection list (Annexure P-6) prepared on 16.11.2014, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis on Collector rate wages on the post of Peon in the Fast Tract Court at Bhind vide order dated 7.12.2009 (Annexure P-1). In the appointment order it was clearly stipulated that the contract appointment is subjected to termination on giving one month's notice and therefore after a period of two years the contract appointment of the petitioner was terminated on 31.3.2011. After contract appointment was terminated, the petitioner kept quiet and did not do anything, and thereafter when a regular process for appointment on the post of Peon was undertaken, he participated in the same and when the selection list was prepared vide Annexure P-6 on 16.10.2014 and he found that he is not selected, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his original termination order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-2), so also the subsequent selection process held by the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis vide order dated 7.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) after due selection by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhind and this selection being done after following due process of law, he is entitled to be treated as appointed on regular service. It is also stated that his removal treating him as surplus employee is unsustainable. That apart, it is also stated that his non-selection is unsustainable, even though no subsequent ground regarding illegality in the selection process is indicated. 4. Ms. Smita Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on Collector rate and his services were terminated in the year 2011. He did not challenge the same instead he kept quiet. The petitioner's participation in the subsequent selection process and having failed in the same, the writ petition is not maintainable. We find that the objections raised by the respondents are sustainable. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. He did not challenge the same instead he kept quiet. The petitioner's participation in the subsequent selection process and having failed in the same, the writ petition is not maintainable. We find that the objections raised by the respondents are sustainable. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. If the petitioner had any grievance with regard of his termination, which was effected vide order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-2), he should have challenged the same immediately in the year 2011 itself. He did not do anything and kept quiet for more than three years and filed the present writ petition only on 20.9.2015, that also after participating in the fresh selection process and failing in the same, that being so now petitioner’s grievance cannot be accepted, challenge to the order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-2) now in the circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, is not permissible. In view of the delay in approaching the Court, so also on account of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was only a contract appointment, and the same did not give any right to the petitioner. 7. As far as challenge to the fresh selection process is concerned, nothing is brought to our notice nor any material is adduced to say as to how and on what basis non-selection of the petitioner can be termed as illegal or unsustainable. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P. K. Chourasiya for petitioner; Ms. Smita Arora for respondents.