JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Respondent No.2 vide Annexure A-1 issued on 13.9.2005, invited applications from the aspirants concerned for filling up 63 posts of Patwaris. One amongst 63 posts, as become notified in Annexure A-1, as, appertaining to General Physically Handicapped candidate (General), became applied for, by the writ petitioner. 2. In the R&P Rules, as were existing in contemporaneity to the issuance of Annexure A-1, no contemplations hence exist qua the aspirants concerned, being appointed on a contractual basis. Moreover, the afore factum is also evident from a perusal of Annexure A-1. 3. Consequently, though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, makes a contention before this Court, that any deviation therefrom, inasmuch as from Annexure A-1, by the respondents, through, rather theirs appointing the writ petitioner, on a contractual basis, does flout, the mandate of the R & P Rules prevalent in 2005, as also breaches the afore stated enunciation, borne in Annexure A-1. Hence, he strives for granting of the writ relief. 4. However, the afore submission made before this Court, cannot be accepted by this Court, as the writ petitioner, did not immediately subsequent to his appearing, in the relevant written or viva-voce tests, as, became conducted, by the respondents, in pursuance to Annexure A-1, institute a writ petition before this Court, seeking there through the making of a mandamus, upon, the respondents, to if not already completed, to forthwith complete the relevant process and upon the selection list becoming prepared, to, ensure that the selection list is forthwith implemented. Be that as it may, all the afore aspirants after completion of training(s) were appointed on a contractual basis in the year 2011, and, the thereat in vogue, rules, did postulate the afore stand. Moreover, in the R&P Rules, as become promulgated in the year, 2010, there rather occurs contemplations qua the selected candidates concerned being engaged on a contractual basis/tenure basis, for one year. The aforesaid engagement for one year, on a tenure basis of the Patwaris, in the muhal concerned, was extendable for a further period, and, on an year to year basis. 5. In pursuance to the aforesaid R&P Rules, as became formulated in the year, 2010, the writ petitioner was offered appointment, on a contractual basis hence as a Patwari in the muhal concerned. The delay (supra) estopps the writ petitioner, to claim the benefit, of the Rules of 1992. 5. In pursuance to the aforesaid R&P Rules, as became formulated in the year, 2010, the writ petitioner was offered appointment, on a contractual basis hence as a Patwari in the muhal concerned. The delay (supra) estopps the writ petitioner, to claim the benefit, of the Rules of 1992. Therefore, the dismissal of the representation of the writ petitioner for his appointment, on a substantive basis, as a Muhal Patwari, is valid, as his contractual appointment, is validly anvilled, upon, the R & P Rules of 2010, rules whereof were in vogue thereat. Moreover, since they further provide that Patwaris are to be engaged or deployed in the muhal concerned on a contractual basis, and, not on a regular basis. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. All pending applications, stand disposed of.