JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9325 of 2017. 2. The appellant – original petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court praying for issuance of appropriate directions to respondent authorities for including the name of the petitioner in the final seniority list of Assistant T.D.O./Assistant Estate Officer for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.03.2014 published on 28.02.2017 in Scheduled Tribe Category. 3. The Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties held that the claim is put forward by the appellant – original petitioner after 30 years of service and that too on the basis of certificate issued to his son. Further, it was observed that the relief claimed by the petitioner is barred by the principals of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. Therefore, in such context, the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioner, were not granted and the petition was dismissed, and these directions are under challenge in the present Appeal. 4. The factual matrix which led to filing of the petition is that the petitioner was appointed on 07.05.1988 as Sub-Inspector in Estate Department of the respondent Corporation. Initially the appointment was given in Scheduled Tribe category. On 14.09.1993, a circular was issued inviting objections to the provisional seniority list of the Sub-Inspector Estate/TDO Sub-Inspectors. Pursuant to the said circular, one of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category raised objection that the petitioner cannot be treated in the category of Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant thereto and after considering the explanation and considering all the aspects, the name of petitioner was shown in the general category in the final seniority list of Sub-Inspector T.D.O./Estate Department. 5. On 15.05.2006, during the time of granting the promotion, the petitioner was not given promotion as departmental inquiry was pending. On 04.05.2011, the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was completed and petitioner was inflicted penalty of censure/warning. Pursuant to completion of departmental inquiry, petitioner was given promotion as Estate/T.D.O. Inspector. Such promotion was given from 28.09.2011 considering the petitioner as general category candidate. 6. On 12.10.2015, provisional merit list of Inspector working with T.D.O./Estate Department was published. Pursuant to such provisional merit list, the objections were invited. Pursuant to completion of departmental inquiry, petitioner was given promotion as Estate/T.D.O. Inspector. Such promotion was given from 28.09.2011 considering the petitioner as general category candidate. 6. On 12.10.2015, provisional merit list of Inspector working with T.D.O./Estate Department was published. Pursuant to such provisional merit list, the objections were invited. Petitioner submitted objections that he be considered as Scheduled Tribe candidate from the date of his appointment i.e. from 07.05.1988. After completing necessary formal exercise, Respondent Corporation published final seniority list for the post of Assistant T.D.O./Estate Officer for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.03.2014 considering petitioner as general category candidate. Petitioner communicated to Respondent to consider him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate from the date of his appointment i.e. from 07.05.1988. Such aspect was not considered by the Respondent Corporation which led to filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayers made by the petitioner which led to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for the appellant has contended that the petitioner was appointed on 07.05.1988 as Sub-Inspector in the Estate Department by the respondent Corporation in the Scheduled Tribe category. It was contended by Mr. Shukla that after duly scrutinizing the documents, the petitioner was given appointment in Scheduled Tribe category. To substantiate his arguments, Mr. Shukla has relied on Staff Selection Committee waiting list wherein petitioner was shown in the category of Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, Mr. Shukla submitted that the Respondent Corporation was very much aware that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, and therefore, the appointment was given in the same category and therefore, Respondent ought to have considered his case. 9. It was further contended by Mr. Shukla that the petitioner was thereafter not given promotion as departmental inquiry was pending against him. Subsequently, when the final list of promotion was published in the year 2015, it was not clarified as to which documents were provided to consider the petitioner as Scheduled Tribe category. Therefore, respondent has arbitrarily shown the petitioner in general category in the final promotion list. Such exercise of the respondent is arbitrary, perverse and with mala fide. It was further contended by Mr. Therefore, respondent has arbitrarily shown the petitioner in general category in the final promotion list. Such exercise of the respondent is arbitrary, perverse and with mala fide. It was further contended by Mr. Shukla that at the time of filing petition before this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner has produced the certificate issued by City Mamlatdar Taluka, Ahmedabad showing the son of the petitioner belonging to the Hindu Tokre Koli Tribe. Therefore, it would indicate that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Tokre Koli Tribe and that would substantiate that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe. On such basis, Mr. Shukla contended that the prayers as made by the petitioner should be granted and the order passed by the learned Single Judge should be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the respondent contended that the contentions raised by the petitioner are not proper and correct. As per the service book duly signed by the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu Koli community which is a general category. It was further contended by Mr. Munshaw that school leaving certificate issued to the petitioner also showed the petitioner to be of Hindu Koli community, and therefore, he belongs to general category. It was further contended that the petitioner was given promotion on 28.09.2011 as general category candidate. Thereafter, seniority list of the cadre of Inspector was published on 12.10.2015. Subsequent thereto, when the petitioner raised objection, the respondent Corporation had addressed a communication dated 21.05.2016 instructing the petitioner to produce necessary documents to substantiate his case that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner had remained absent and thereafter, petitioner has also failed to substantiate his claim while submitting his documents on 25.05.2016. It was further contended by Mr. Munshaw that petitioner was given another opportunity through a communication dated 16.06.2016 to substantiate his claim, which petitioner failed to do so. 11. It was submitted by Mr. Munshaw that in circumstances mentioned herein-mentioned above, Respondent Corporation has published final seniority list on 05.07.2016. Reliance was placed by Mr. Munshaw on the certificate issued by City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad dated 09.07.1982 showing that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Koli category. Such category is not considered as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Gujarat. Mr. It was submitted by Mr. Munshaw that in circumstances mentioned herein-mentioned above, Respondent Corporation has published final seniority list on 05.07.2016. Reliance was placed by Mr. Munshaw on the certificate issued by City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad dated 09.07.1982 showing that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Koli category. Such category is not considered as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Gujarat. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate took this Hon’ble Court to various circulars of the Government of Gujarat, wherein the Hindu Koli tribe was not considered in the category of Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, according to Mr. Munshaw, the contentions as raised by the petitioner are not justified. Further it was contended that by Mr. Munshaw that after a span of 30 years, the petitioner cannot claim to be a candidate of Scheduled Tribe category based on such certificate issued to his son. Therefore, as per Mr. Munshaw, the petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 12. After hearing the arguments by both the parties, it can be perused that initially the appointment of petitioner was in Scheduled Tribe category. However, after certain objections by other candidates, the name of petitioner was shown in general category in the final seniority list. There was no grievance raised thereafter by the petitioner when his name was shown in final seniority list as a general category candidate. Further, the petitioner was given promotion as Estate/T.D.O. Inspector treating him as a general category candidate on 28.09.2011. While accepting such promotion, there are no efforts made by the petitioner to make his stand clear that he was not general category candidate. He has duly accepted the promotion. During the time of accepting the promotion or after accepting the promotion, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner has made any effort to consider him as a general category candidate. Therefore, arguments of learned advocate Mr. Shukla for the appellant that initially in Staff Selection Committee, the petitioner was a Scheduled Tribe candidate, and therefore, he should be considered as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, cannot be countenanced. Once after initial appointment and after subsequent objections, the name of the petitioner was taken into general category, and thereafter when the petitioner has accepted his promotion as a general category candidate, the arguments made by the petitioner to consider him in Scheduled Tribe, cannot be accepted. 13. Once after initial appointment and after subsequent objections, the name of the petitioner was taken into general category, and thereafter when the petitioner has accepted his promotion as a general category candidate, the arguments made by the petitioner to consider him in Scheduled Tribe, cannot be accepted. 13. The second limb of arguments submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shukla that reliance on the certificate issued to his son in the year 2017 showing him as Hindu-Koli, cannot be accepted. Such certificate is of the year 2017 i.e. almost after 30 years of initial appointment. Further, there is school leaving certificate of the petitioner himself showing him as Hindu-Koli which is a general category at the relevant point of time. Therefore, such contention by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, observing the same, the learned Single Judge has categorically remarked that such a claim is put-forth merely after 30 years of service, and therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. Having come to such conclusion, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. The present Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly. Pending Civil Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.