JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, whose father passed away on 17.07.1985 while working as UPSA in Evans Schools, Parassala, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Exts.P10, P13 and P14 to the extent of non-reckoning of his appointment notionally with effect from 01.06.2010 from the date of occurrence of vacancy in which his appointment has been approved. 2. The petitioner's father while working in the Evans Schools died in harness on 17.07.1985. The petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. On attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment. The Manager of the School declined the claim of the petitioner. 3. The AEO passed Ext.P1 order dated 29.09.2006 directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy of UPSA arising after 12.01.2005. The revision petition filed by the Manager against Ext.P1 was rejected. Ext.P2 revisional order dated 31.05.2008 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.18868/2008, W.A. No.365/2015 and SLP No.1637/2015. All those litigations went against the Manager and in favour of the petitioner. 4. During the said period, certain UPSAs approached this Court for approval of their appointment in additional division vacancies. The Government directed the Manager to approve their appointments if the only objection is the non-appointment of the petitioner. The Government also, as per Ext.P6, directed the Manager to give appointment to the petitioner if judgment in the writ petition filed by the petitioner goes against the Manager. 5. The petitioner states that appointment of UPSAs in the additional division vacancies was approved after obtaining an undertaking from them to the effect that they have no objection in revising their seniority based on the judgment in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner states that he was given appointment in the year 2015 and the appointment was approved with effect from 01.06.2016 as per Ext.P10. The petitioner was retrenched on 16.07.2018 as per Ext.P11 to accommodate one T.S. Sharmila Jose (HSA). Ext.P11 was set aside by the 3 rd respondent. 6. The petitioner states that as per the approved seniority list as on 31.01.2018, the petitioner is placed below respondents 8 to 13. The petitioner is entitled to reckon his seniority notionally from 01.06.2010 as his appointment being in the vacancy of additional post arisen in the year 2010-2011. Ext.P11 was set aside by the 3 rd respondent. 6. The petitioner states that as per the approved seniority list as on 31.01.2018, the petitioner is placed below respondents 8 to 13. The petitioner is entitled to reckon his seniority notionally from 01.06.2010 as his appointment being in the vacancy of additional post arisen in the year 2010-2011. The Staff Fixation Order for the year 2019-2020 has resulted in reduction of one post of UPSA and the petitioner was thrown out treating him as the juniormost. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision. The revisional authority rejected the revision as per Ext.P14. 7. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to be appointed in the additional division vacancy arisen on 01.06.2010 to satisfy his Rule 51B claim. He is entitled to be appointed in the first arising vacancy after 12.01.2005. There was ban of appointment in the additional division vacancies during the years 2005-2010. On lifting the ban, the petitioner ought to have been appointed in the year 2010-2011. The Manager has illegally denied the right of the petitioner. 8. The 5 th respondent-AEO filed counter affidavit. The 5 th respondent stated that as per GO dated 31.05.2008 the Government directed the Manager to give appointment to the petitioner in the next arising vacancy. The Manager did not implement the Government Order. Approval of appointments as UPSAs was given after obtaining undertaking of the UPSAs that they do not have any objection in revising their seniority at a future date, based on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.18868/2008. The 5 th respondent submitted that the petitioner has appointment approval as UPSA with effect from 01.06.2016 and he is eligible for seniority with effect from 01.06.2016. 9. The 6 th respondent in her counter affidavit pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA with effect from 23.09.2015 to 31.03.2016 was approved by the AEO only on daily wage basis. The approval of appointment given to the petitioner in the post of UPSA was granted on regular basis only with effect from 01.06.2016. The contention that since the petitioner was appointed in the additional division vacancy which had arisen in the year 2010- 2011, he is entitled to have his appointment notionally reckoned from 01.06.2010, is untenable and unsustainable. 10. The approval of appointment given to the petitioner in the post of UPSA was granted on regular basis only with effect from 01.06.2016. The contention that since the petitioner was appointed in the additional division vacancy which had arisen in the year 2010- 2011, he is entitled to have his appointment notionally reckoned from 01.06.2010, is untenable and unsustainable. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for respondents 6 to 15. 11. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 17.07.1985. Though the petitioner claimed appointment under Rule 51B on attaining majority, the petitioner was appointed as UPSA only in the year 2015 and approval to that appointment was given only with effect from 01.06.2016 as per Ext.P10. 12. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to reckon his appointment notionally with effect from 01.06.2010. Due to the delayed appointment of the petitioner, he was treated as junior and was sent out due to loss of vacancy during the academic year 2019-2020. 13. After the demise of his father, the petitioner claimed appointment under Rule 51B. The educational authorities passed order dated 29.09.2006 directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner. The Manager filed W.P.(C) No.18868/2008 assailing the order of the educational authorities. The writ petition was dismissed as per judgment dated 07.01.2015. The matter was taken up in appeal in W.A. No.365/2015. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.02.2015. An SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Manager and the SLP was dismissed on 14.09.2015. 14. Finally, the petitioner was appointed against an additional division vacancy on 23.09.2015. Due to bogus admissions in the School, the appointment of the petitioner was made on daily wage basis from 28.09.2015 to 31.03.2016. Approval was granted for regular appointment of the petitioner as UPSA only with effect from 01.06.2016. Ext.P10 order approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2016, was passed on 27.06.2016. 15. Though the petitioner is a Rule 51B claimant, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis only with effect from 01.06.2016. The delay in making appointments was primarily due to the litigations pending in this regard. Ext.P10 order approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2016, was passed on 27.06.2016. 15. Though the petitioner is a Rule 51B claimant, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis only with effect from 01.06.2016. The delay in making appointments was primarily due to the litigations pending in this regard. The Manager filed a writ petition and a writ appeal before this Court and filed SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court. The SLP was dismissed on 14.09.2015. The petitioner has not cared to challenge Ext.P10 within a reasonable time. As the petitioner was regularly appointed only with effect from 01.06.2016, the petitioner cannot aspire to get his appointment notionally approved from 01.06.2010. In the facts of the case, I find that the writ petition is devoid of any merits. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.