ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services II. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the Memo No.108/E2/2016, dated 28.05.2018 issued by respondent no.2 as arbitrary, illegal and quash or set aside the same and to declare the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 23.03.2017 instead of regularizing from 07.06.2007 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Rules, 1998 apart from being violative of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f 07.06.2007 and grant all consequential benefits like seniority, promotion and increments including arrears of salary on account of such refixation. 3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as following: a) Petitioner has acquired Diploma in Commercial and Computer Practice inclusive of Typewriting English (Higher) and Typewriting Telugu (Lower) from State Board of Technical Education and Training from Sanjay Gandhi Government Polytechnic College, Adilabad in the year 1999 which is equivalent to Intermediate qualification. b) Petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste Community and has responded to a notification bearing No. A2/643/2007 dated 01.03.2007 issued by the Respondent No. 4 for the recruitment of eligible backlog vacancies meant for SC and ST categories. This is to be made based on marks obtained in the qualifying academic examination by waiving written examination and interview. c) Petitioner had been appointed as Typist by the Respondent No. 4 by the proceeding no. A2/643/2007-10 dated 28.04.2007 subject to passing of telugu typewriting (Higher) test within the period of probation. The petitioner joined the service on 07.06.2007 in the pursuance of the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent dated 01.06.2007. d) Petitioner was directed to discharge services in the Head of Department at Hyderabad w.e.f 14.03.2012. Petitioner made a representation on 01.09.2014, that the petitioner had fractured her left hand in 2009 is unable to pass the test and that the petitioner might be exempted from passing the test. e) Petitioner made a representation on 17.02.2016 and on 05.10.2016 for the relaxation of the Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules 1998, in pursuance, 1st Respondent through memo No.520/Estt.A1/2016 dated 23.03.2017 granted exemption from passing the test. e) Petitioner made a representation on 17.02.2016 and on 05.10.2016 for the relaxation of the Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules 1998, in pursuance, 1st Respondent through memo No.520/Estt.A1/2016 dated 23.03.2017 granted exemption from passing the test. f) The 2nd Respondent vide memo no.108/E2/2016 dated 08.12.2017 regularized petitioner's services w.e.f 23.03.2017 instead of 07.06.2007. Regarding the same, a representation was made by the petitioner on 27.01.2018, but to no avail. g) Petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 9543 of 2018 challenging the action of the Respondents in regularizing petitioners services w.e.f 23.07.2017 instead of from 07.06.2007 and this court by the order dated 22.03.2018 disposed of W.P.No. 9543 of 2018 directing the Respondents to dispose my representation dated 27.01.2018. h) The Petitioner was further restrained to challenge the legality and validity of the Memo No. 108/E2/2016, dated 28.05.2018 rejecting the Petitioner’s representation and proceedings no.108/E2/2016 dated 08.12.2017 of the 2nd Respondent to the extent of regularizing the services of petitioner from 23.03.2017 instead of 07.06.2007. i) The present controversy related to Clause 4 of annexure 1 of the rules which provide for recruitment method and qualifications for appointment. The post of Telugu/English typists other than in the offices other than heads of department and directorates to be filled by direct recruitment. j) Clause (i) of column 3 states that the candidates shall have pass intermediate examination or shall possess equivalent qualification. The petitioner acquired Diploma in Commercial and Computer Practice which is equivalent qualification and fulfils the condition of Clause (i) (b) the clause (ii) of column 3 states that the candidate must have passed the government technical examination in Typewriting by Higher grade in Telugu on Government Standard Keyboard. The clause (iii) of column 3 states that if persons under Clause (ii) are not available, then candidates who have passed the above examination in Typewriting by lower grade if otherwise, be appointed. The petitioner herein possesses Typewriting in Lower grade in Telugu and is eligible for the post in accordance with the rules and therefore is appointed. k) The decision of respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services from the date of granting exemption has eventually led to cascading effects on the petitioner’s seniority and his eligibility for increments. The petitioner herein possesses Typewriting in Lower grade in Telugu and is eligible for the post in accordance with the rules and therefore is appointed. k) The decision of respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services from the date of granting exemption has eventually led to cascading effects on the petitioner’s seniority and his eligibility for increments. The petitioner’s juniors were promoted to next higher category due to which the petitioner has lost chance of getting promoted and not been granted regular increments from his date of appointment. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 to 3, in particular, paras 15. 17 and 18 reads as under: “15. In reply to para No.7, it is to submit that as per the Rule 6(1) of A.P. Ministerial Services Rules, 1998 the qualification to the post of Typist is as follows: i) Must have passed the Intermediate Examination conducted by the State Board of Intermediate Examination or its equivalent examination. ii) Must have passed the Government Technical Examination in Typewriting by Higher Grade in Telugu on Government standard key board. iii) Provided that if persons with the qualification prescribed in item (ii) above are not available candidates who have passed the above examination in typewriting by Lower Grade if otherwise qualified be appointed. iv) Provided further that candidates who possess typewriting qualifications in English by Lower Grade besides the qualifications mentioned in items (ii) and (iii) above shall be given preference for appointment by direct recruitment. In foot note it is mentioned that "if sufficient number of candidates with Telugu Typewriting qualification, are not available for appointment as Typist candidates with English Typewriting qualification may be appointed subject to the condition that she should acquire Telugu Typewriting qualification within the period of probation on pain of postponement of increment without cumulative effect". 17) In reply to Para No. 8, it is submitted that as per the instructions of the Government and as per rules, if any person is appointed conditionally his/her services shall be regularized from the date of acquiring of such qualification. In this case the individual has not acquired such qualification and the Government has relaxed the condition i.e., to acquire Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade on 23.03.2017. Accordingly her services were regularized from the date of issue of relaxation orders i.e., 23.03.2017. In this case the individual has not acquired such qualification and the Government has relaxed the condition i.e., to acquire Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade on 23.03.2017. Accordingly her services were regularized from the date of issue of relaxation orders i.e., 23.03.2017. 18) In reply to Para No.9, it is submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.116, dt: 29.02.2008 the Government relaxes the Rule 23 of A.P.Ministerial Service Rules 1966 in favour of only Junior Stenographers who were appointed between 05.03.1987 & 14.07.1998 as to the requirement of passing Typewriting Higher Grade in Telugu and Shorthand Higher Grade in Telugu, whereas no relaxation was issued for the post of Typist. Hence the said G.O. is applicable for Junior Stenographers only.” 5. PERUSED THE RECORD a) Memo No.108/E2/2016, dated 28.05.2018 of the Director of Woman Development and Child Welfare Department, Telangana State, Hyderabad reads as under: “In the reference 1st cited, Smt.C.Naveena, Typist, O/o Director, WD&CW Dept., Telangana, Hyderabad has made a representation with a request to regularize her services from the date of appointment i.e., from 07.06.2007, release the increments from 01.06.2008 and for consequential seniority. In the reference 2nd cited, the Hon'ble High Court in the orders dated 22.03.2018 in W.P.No.9543 of 2018 filed by Smt.C.Naveena, Typist, disposed W.P. at the stage of admission, directing the 2nd respondent (Director, WD&CW Dept., Hyderabad) to consider the claim of the petitioner (her application dated 27.01.2018) in accordance with Law and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of the above, it is to inform that Smt. C.Naveena has been appointed as Typist through District Selection Committee for recruitment to Group- IV services to the backlog vacancies of SC/ST 2007 vide Progs.No.A2/648/2007-10, dt:28.08.2007 of the District Collector, Nizamabad District subject to condition that she should acquire the Telugu Higher Typewriting qualification within the period of probation on pain of postponement of increment without cumulative effect. The individual has made a representation dt:05.01.2016 duly submitting that she is unable to pass the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination due to her left hand was fractured in the year 2009 and she got handset with a Bone Setter due to which the bones are not properly set and there is a difficulty in doing work and requested to kindly consider her case on humanitarian grounds and relaxation may be given from passing of Typewriting Higher Grade Examination and regularize her services in the post of Typist. Accordingly this office Vide Lr.No. 108/E2/2016, dt:04.02.2016 has requested the Government to accord permission for giving exemption from passing Telugu Higher Typewriting Examination duly relaxing Rule 6 of A.P.Ministerial Service Rules 1998. Vide Memo.No.520/Estt.A1/2016, dt:23.03.2017 the Government has exempt individual from passing of Telugu Higher Grade Typewriting Examination duly relaxing rule 6 of A.P.Ministerial Service Rules 1998 and directed to take necessary action to regularize the services of Smt.C.Naveena, Typist accordingly. Vide Lr.No.108/E2/2016, dt:21.04.2017 this office has requested the Government to clarify whether the services of the individual may be regularized as Typist from date of appointment or from the date of relaxation. In this regard, the Government have issued clarification vide Govt.Memo.No. 1672/Estt.A1/2017, dated 11.07.2017 that after careful examination of the matter, as per rules if any person is appointed conditionally he/her services shall be regularized from the date of acquiring of such qualification. In the instant case the individual has not acquired such qualification and orders were issued in the Memo.No.520/Estt.A1/2016, dt:23.03.2017 relaxing the condition i.e., to acquire Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade for appointment as Typist. Hence her services has to be regularized from the date of issue of relaxation orders i.e., 23.03.2017. Accordingly, this office has regularized the services of the individual vide this office Progs.No.108/E2/2016, dt:08.12.2017. Hence, the representation of the individual, dt:27.01.2018 to regularize her services from the date of appointment i.e., from 07.06.2007, release the increments from 01.06.2008 and for consequential seniority cannot be considered. b) The contents of the Petitioner’s representation dated 01.09.2014 reads as under: I Smt.C.Naveena, Typist, O/o Commissioner, WD&CW Dept., A.P.Hyderabad submit few lines for your kind consideration and favourable action. In response to the reference cited I submit that I have appeared for the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination in the month of August 2013 but not passed. b) The contents of the Petitioner’s representation dated 01.09.2014 reads as under: I Smt.C.Naveena, Typist, O/o Commissioner, WD&CW Dept., A.P.Hyderabad submit few lines for your kind consideration and favourable action. In response to the reference cited I submit that I have appeared for the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination in the month of August 2013 but not passed. Copies of the Hall-Ticket along with the Marks Memorandum are herewith enclosed for your kind perusal. In this regard I submit that. I have been appearing for Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination regularly since June 2007 but not being passed. Copies of the Hall-Tickets and Marks Memorandum will be submitted soon, as most of the times, I was submitted my applications through online, appeared for Examinations, but I could not passed the said examination due to which the hard copies are not available with me. Further, 1 submit that I have requested the O/o Commissioner, State Board of Technical Education and Training, A.P. Hyderabad with a request to provide certified copies of Marks memorandum. Soon after receipt of the said copies of Memorandum, the same will be submitted. Further, I submit to your kind self that i met with an accident (fallen down in home) in the year 2009 and my hand got fractured wherein both the bones of my hand were broken. I got my hand set with Bone Setter. And, now I got examined my hand with an Orthopedician and came to know that my hand has 50% disability in the movement due to which I am not able to type fast and pass the examination. Copies of the Medical Certificate and x-ray are herewith enclosed for your kind perusal. In view of the above, I request you madam, that relaxation may kindly be given to me from passing of Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination on Medical Grounds, for which act of kindness, I shall ever thankful to you Madam. And also submitted that, I have already passed Telugu Typewriting Lower Grade and English Typewriting Higher Grade Examinations at the time of appointment itself. c) The contents of the Petitioner’s representation dated 05.01.2016 reads as under: “I, C.Naveena, Typist, 0/o. Director, WD&CW Dept., Telangana, Hyderabad would like to submit few lines for your kind consideration and favourable orders. And also submitted that, I have already passed Telugu Typewriting Lower Grade and English Typewriting Higher Grade Examinations at the time of appointment itself. c) The contents of the Petitioner’s representation dated 05.01.2016 reads as under: “I, C.Naveena, Typist, 0/o. Director, WD&CW Dept., Telangana, Hyderabad would like to submit few lines for your kind consideration and favourable orders. I submit that I was appointed as Typist in the year 2007 under SC Backlog vacancies by the District Selection Committee, Nizamabad and posted at ICDS Yellareddy of Nizamabad district with a condition to acquire Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination within the probation on pain of postponement of increment. Further, I have absorbed in the 0/0 Director, WD&CW Dept., Hyderabad during the year 2012 and as on date 1 am working in the office of the Director, WD&CW Dept., Telangana Hyderabad after State Bifurcation. I also submit that I have completed 3 years Polytechnic Course in Diploma in Commercial and Computer Practice (DCCP) from State Board of Technical Education and Training (SETET), which is equal to English Typewriting Higher Grade and Telugu Typewriting Lower Grade and the same was considered at the time of appointment. It is further submitted that, my left hand was facture in the year 2009, and i got my hand set with a Bone Setter due to which the bones are not properly set and there is a difficulty in doing work. The X-rays of my both hands are enclosed wherein it is clearly seen that my left hand bones are not properly set. I further submitted that, due the to above reason, though I have been continuously appearing for the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination, I am unable to pass the examination due to non completion of the Speed Test in time (ie. 10 minutes). As the speed paper will not be valued if the candidate does not complete the speed paper. And I use to pass the 2nd paper every time. And also submitted that, my Annual Grade Increments have been stopped and my services are not regularized due to non-passing of Typewriting Examination in Telugu Higher. Due to stoppage of increments I am facing many financial problems. And I use to pass the 2nd paper every time. And also submitted that, my Annual Grade Increments have been stopped and my services are not regularized due to non-passing of Typewriting Examination in Telugu Higher. Due to stoppage of increments I am facing many financial problems. I came to know that, the Government is kind enough to give exemption from passing of Typewriting Lower Grade and High Grade examination in favour of certain individuals due to physical deformity/medium of instructions etc., some examples are as follows, (Copies enclosed) Vide G.O.Rt. No.2098 Home (Ser.iil) Department Dt.04.11.2013 (Copy enclosed) has accorded permission for exemption from passing Telugu Typewriting Lower and Higher Grade Examinations in favour of Sri Mohd.Mathenuddin, Typist, O/e Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad due to physical deformity. Vide G.O.RL.No.1180, D1.05.08.2008 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Esst.V) Dept., (copy enclosed) has issued orders fot exemption from passing Telugu Typewriting Examination in favour of Sri.Syed Asad, Typist, O/o Zilla Parishad, Kadapa District because his mother tongue is Urdu and his medium of instruction is English. Therefore, I request the generous authority to kindly consider my case on humanitarian grounds and relaxation may be given from passing of Typewriting Higher Grade Examination and regularize my services in the post of Typist, for which act of kindness, I shall ever thankful to you Madam. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : 6. A bare perusal of the averments made by the Petitioner at para 7 of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of the present writ petition are totally different from the pleas put-forth in Petitioner’s representations dt. 01.09.2014 and 05.01.2016 (referred to and extracted above) where under the Petitioner made a request to consider Petitioner’s case on humanitarian grounds and grant relaxation to the Petitioner from passing of telugu typewriting higher grade examination and regularize Petitioner’s services in the post of typist. Petitioner in the present writ petition contends that the condition of passing the test prescribed in the order of Petitioner’s appointment itself is illegal. 7. This Court opines that the Petitioner after having been appointed by proceedings No.A2/643/2007-10, dt. 28.04.2007 of the 4th Respondent herein subject to passing of Telugu typewriting (higher) test within the period of probation, however, could not pass the test within the period of probation and admittedly failed to comply with the condition stipulated in Petitioner’s order of appointment dt. 28.04.2007. This Court opines that the Petitioner after having been appointed by proceedings No.A2/643/2007-10, dt. 28.04.2007 of the 4th Respondent herein subject to passing of Telugu typewriting (higher) test within the period of probation, however, could not pass the test within the period of probation and admittedly failed to comply with the condition stipulated in Petitioner’s order of appointment dt. 28.04.2007. Petitioner in response to the 2nd Respondent Memo No.2692/E1/2011, dated 23.07.2014 issued to the Petitioner seeking proof of passing the test represented vide Petitioner’s representation dated 01.09.2014 (referred to and extracted above) requested the Commissioner, WD & CW Department, A.P., Hyderabad, to grant relaxation from the said condition since the Petitioner met with an accident in the year 2009 and got her hand fractured and the Petitioner’s hand had 50% disability due to which the Petitioner is not able to type fast and pass the examination. The Petitioner request was however rejected in the year June 2015 by the Respondent authority giving six months time to the Petitioner to pass Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination vide Memo No.2692/E1/2013, dt. .06.2015. The Petitioner again renewed her request to the 2nd Respondent herein vide her representation dt. 05.01.2016 placing reliance on certain G.Os., and the same was considered and orders passed in favour of the Petitioner exempting the Petitioner from passing Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination duly relaxing Rule 6 of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 vide Memo No.520/Estt.A1/2016, dated 23.03.2017 of the 1st Respondent. 8. A bare perusal of the order impugned dt. 28.05.2018, clearly indicates that the 2nd Respondent rejected the request of the Petitioner dt. 27.01.2018 to regularize Petitioner’s services from the date of appointment i.e., from 07.06.2007 and for release of increments from 01.06.2008 and for consequential seniority duly considering Petitioner’s representation dated 27.01.2018 and duly complying the High Court orders dated 22.03.2018 passed in WP No.9543 of 2018 which was disposed of directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner made vide Petitioner’s representation dated 27.01.2018 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 9. 9. This Court opines that the order impugned is based on the clarification issued by the Government vide Government Memo No.1672/Estt.A1/2017, dated 11.07.2017 which says that after careful examination of the matter, as per rules, the Government opined that, if any person is appointed conditionally his/her services shall be regularized from the date of acquiring such qualification. 10. In the present case, this Court opines that though the Petitioner did not acquire such qualification as stipulated in Petitioner’s order of appointment within the period stipulated by the Respondent authority and however taking a sympathetic view duly considering Petitioner’s representations dt. 01.09.2014 and 05.01.2016 (referred to and extracted above) on humanitarian grounds the Petitioner was exempted from passing Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination duly relaxing Rule 6 of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 vide Memo No.520/Estt.A1/2016, dt. 23.03.2017 of the 1st Respondent herein. 11. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1992) 4 SCC 683 in R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir (para 10), in particular para 10 reads as under: Para 10 : “Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that “a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage”. 12. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilot’s Association of India (ALPAI) & Others Vs. Director of General of Civil Aviation & Others, in particular, para 12 reads as under: Para 12 : The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppels – the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estopped), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily. 13. This Court opines that the petitioner’s request to regularize petitioner’s services from the date of appointment i.e., from 07.06.2007 and for release of increments from 01.06.2008 and for the consequential seniority was rightly rejected vide the impugned orders dated 28.05.2018 vide Memo No.108/E2/2016, since the order of appointment issued to the Petitioner dated 28.04.2007 clearly stipulated that the said order of appointment was subject to petitioner passing Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination and admittedly even according to the Petitioner the Petitioner had a fracture in the year 2009 and the Petitioner did not comply with the condition stipulated in the order of her appointment within the period of her probation and though ample time was also given, the Petitioner could not acquire the required qualification. 14. The plea of the petitioner put forth at para 9 of the petitioner’s affidavit that the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 29.02.2008 relaxing the passing of test for Junior Stenographers appointed between 05.03.1987 and 14.07.1998 and that the petitioner also stands on the same footing is untenable, in view of the explanation furnished at para 18 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, contending that in G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 29.02.2008, the Government relaxes the Rule 23 of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1996 in favour of only Junior Stenographers, who are appointed between 05.03.1987 and 14.07.1998 as to the requirement of passing Typewriting Higher Grade in Telugu, whereas no relaxation was issued for the post of Typist and therefore, the said G.O. is applicable for Junior Stenographers only and not for the post of Typist. 15. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and the specific averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, in particular, paras 15, 17 and 18 and also the view of the Apex Court on the principle of Approbate and Reprobate in the judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above) in judgment reported in (1992) 4 SCC 683 in R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir and judgment reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilot’s Association of India (ALPAI) & Others Vs. Director of General of Civil Aviation & Others, this Court opines that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 28.05.2018 issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Memo No.108/E2/2016 and the writ petition is dismissed since the same is devoid of merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.