HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22727 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner was appointed as Attender – cum - Water Carrier in Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District, 1st respondent herein, somewhere in the year 1993. He filed W.P. No.16889 of 1998 for regularization of his services. The said writ petition was disposed of on 21-06-2005 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the vacancies, which are sought to be filled up through notification dated 15-05-1998 and in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22-04-1994. Acting on this, the 1st respondent issued an order dated 21-11-2005 regularizing the services of the petitioner in the vacancy that arose on 20-11-2005 on account of absorption of N. Govindarao, L.G.S., as attender. 2. Petitioner made a representation on 17-02-2009 to the 1st respondent claiming that he is entitled to be conferred with the benefit of regularization with effect from 15-10-1999, on which date his juniors were said to have been absorbed, and to extend all the consequential benefits. His grievance is that no action has been taken on the representation and he seeks appropriate direction. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.16889 of 1998 was implemented vide proceedings dated 21-11-2005. The vacancy for regularizing the service of the petitioner arose one day prior to that. In case, petitioner had any objection for the said proceedings, he ought to have proceeded or instituted proceedings at that time itself. Having got the benefit of the order dated 21-11-2005, he came forward with the representation four years thereafter. Further, the question of the maintenance of any seniority does not arise in the present context. The so-called juniors of the petitioner were regularized in the year 1999. If he has any grievance about it, he ought to have challenged those orders. He did not take any such steps. Therefore, the respondents cannot be expected to act upon the representation made by the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 15, 2010. KTL