G. R. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) -THIS writ petition relates to grievance of the petitioner concerning his promotion in service. The petitioner joined the Indian Army in 1963 as a Regular Commissioned Officer. The petitioner is now holding the rank of Lt. Col. and he could not thereafter qualify for promotion to the rank of Col. Even at the time of promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. he could qualify only on second consideration and as such lost the seniority of one year vis-a-vis his original batch-mates and thus became an officer of 1964 batch in place of 1963 batch for the purpose of future promotion. An officer of the rank of the petitioner is given three considerations for selection and promotion to the next higher rank as follows : (a) Fresh consideration, (b) First review, and (c) Final review. ( 2 ) IF the officer is not found fit for promotion even after the final review, he is treated as finally superseded and his case is not considered any further except as a special review case. In case an officer is given some redress by the competent authority on his statutory/non-statutory complaint or otherwise resulting in a change of career profile, the officer is given corresponding special review (s ). According to respondents the petitioner has been given three considerations and also one special review at the appropriate stage, but he was not found fit for promotion to the rank of Col. and as such, all chances of consideration having been spent out, the petitioner is entitled no more to further consideration for. promotion. The result of the final review was communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated the 31st May, 1989 which is Annexure-N to the writ petition wherein the petitioner was also informed that he was no longer eligible for further consideration for promotion as per existing rules. The petitioner submitted a statutory complaint dated the 15th February, 1990 to the Central Government against his supersession for promotion to the rank of Col. and the Central Government by letter dated the 7th January, 1991, Annexure-O to the writ petition informed that the Government after perusal of relevant records was satisfied that no injustice had been done to him and the statutory complaint was therefore rejected. and the Central Government by letter dated the 7th January, 1991, Annexure-O to the writ petition informed that the Government after perusal of relevant records was satisfied that no injustice had been done to him and the statutory complaint was therefore rejected. The petitioner is aggrieved against the said letter of the Central Government dated the 7th January, 1991 and prays for quashing the same. The petitioner also prays for quashing the Circular of the Central Government dated the 25th May, 1992, Annexure-P to the writ petition by which the officers in general have been asked not to make repeated complaints on the same subject when there are no fresh or additional inputs to justify such an action and it has been stated therein that the officers violating orders and instructions regarding submission of complaints will render themselves liable to disciplinary/administrative action. The petitioner also prays for promotion to the rank of Col. and virtually that is the focal desideratum of the petitioner is this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was first considered for promotion to the rank of Col. by the Selection Board in September, 1985 which is termed as fresh consideration. The Annual Confidential Report (A. C. R.) of the petitioner upto 31st May, 1985 was before the Selection Board at the time of the fresh consideration in September, 1985. The petitioner was however not cleared for promotion. The petitioner had earlier submitted representation against adverse remarks in his A. C. R. By letter dated the 31st July, 1986, Annexure-I to the writ petition issued by the concerned authority it was informed that the assessment of the petitioner made by the Brig. A. S. Sharma, the then Chief Engineer and Initiating Officer (I. O.) as made in the Interim Confidential Report (I. C. R.) for the period from 1st June, 1984 to 4th December, 1984 and the assessment of Air Vice-Marshal, P. L. Purahit, the I. O. as made in the Annual Confidential Report (A. C. R.) for the period from 1st January, 1985 to 31st May, 1985 had been expunged. As we have seen under rules such expunction of certain adverse remarks entitled the petitioner to a special review at the fresh consideration level again. As we have seen under rules such expunction of certain adverse remarks entitled the petitioner to a special review at the fresh consideration level again. Such special consideration was accordingly given to the petitioner in August, 1986 on the basis of corrected records, but that also yielded no ultimate result in favour of the petitioner as was communicated by the Military Secretary vide Annexure J to the writ petition. By letter dated the 4th November, 1987 Annexure-K to the writ petition, the Military Secretary communicated that the Reviewing Officer's (R. O's) assessment in the A. C. R. of the petitioner for 1985-86 was expunged but the residual portion of the complaint of the petitioner had been rejected. After such expunction of certain adverse remarks for the period 1985-86 the petitioner was again considered for promotion in November, 1987 as a first review case on the basis of records minus the expunged remarks but this time also he was not cleared for promotion. Thereafter final review was given in November-December 1988 but the petitioner was not given promotion this time also. In view of the three normal chances of consideration given to the petitioner and also a special review at the appropriate level, namely, at the level of fresh consideration the petitioner is obviously entitled to no further consideration for promotion under the existing rules. ( 4 ) IN this connection, the petitioner who argued his case in person attracted my attention to paragraph-17 of the affidavit-in-opposition which projects an impression that after expunction of adverse remarks made by the Reviewing Officer for the year 1985-86 in November, 1987 the petitioner was given a special review (fresh) sometime thereafter. This is however plainly a mistake and the correct picture in this respect appears from paragraph-29 of the affidavit-in-opposition as well as from the records produced at the time of hearing. The correct picture as I have already stated is that after the fresh consideration in September 1985, certain adverse remarks in respect of the period from June 1984 to December 1984 and January 1985 to May 1985 were expunged and thereafter the petitioner was given special review (fresh) in August 1986 on the basis of corrected records. Subsequently, certain adverse remarks relating to 1985-86 were expunged and thereafter in November, 1987 the petitioner was given first review. Subsequently, certain adverse remarks relating to 1985-86 were expunged and thereafter in November, 1987 the petitioner was given first review. The question of giving any special review after the first review does not arise because the first review itself was given after the expunction of certain adverse remarks for the period 1985-86. The final review was duly given in November, 1988. Therefore the petitioner was given all chances of consideration as admissible under rules, namely, 4' considerations is all including one special review (fresh consideration) at the appropriate stage. The grievance of the petitioner that he was trot given all chances of consideration is therefore not tenable. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has also raised a question of malice against certain officers in rendering report against him. This grievance is of no consequence now because, as we have seen, the petitioners complaints against adverse remarks were considered by the appropriate authorities and relief was also given to him on the basis of such consideration by expunging adverse remarks. But inspite of that the petitioner could not earn promotion. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, working under Air Force and the Air Force Authorities instead of applying army norms to the petitioner who is an Army Officer applied the Air Force norms in connection with the Confidential Report of the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner is also of on significance now because his complaints were considered by the concerned authorities and certain reliefs were given to him and therefore it is evident that even if there had been any substance in the petitioner's grievance in this respect that also was taken necessary care of by the appropriate authorities. It also appears that the matter was considered in the general perspective and the authority concerned under the Army Headquarter letter No. 32301/28/ (30)/ms-4co-ord. It also appears that the matter was considered in the general perspective and the authority concerned under the Army Headquarter letter No. 32301/28/ (30)/ms-4co-ord. dated the 22nd February, 1990 recorded on a scrutiny of a large number of confidential reports that it had been observed that most of the Air Force Officers while initiating/endorsing such reports assessed the Army Officers serving under them in accordance with norms and standards followed in the Army and as a further safeguard, all reports initiated/endorsed by Civilian/naval/air Force Officers were suitably highlighted during the promotion/selection panels to enable the selection committees to take due cognizance and therefore the apprehension that the Army Officers serving under Air Force Officers 'remain at a loss' was totally unfounded and not borne by facts. Therefore the apprehension of the petitioner in this respect is also unfounded. ( 6 ) THIS writ petition is also mortally hit by the fact drat the petitioner earlier moved a writ petition regarding the same matter before the Allahabad High Court in January, 1990 and the said writ petition was rejected by the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 15-1-90 against which the petitioner also moved a special leave petition before the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed. In the earlier writ petition the petitioner inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated the 19th January, 1988 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. That order is Annexure-M to the present writ petition. By that order of the Government the petitioner's statutory complaint dated the 27th April, 1987 for promotion to the rank of Col. by selection was rejected as the Government was satisfied that no injustice had been done to the petitioner in the matter of his supersession to the rank of Col. since the petitioner failed to make the grade based on his overall record of service sort comparative merit. by selection was rejected as the Government was satisfied that no injustice had been done to the petitioner in the matter of his supersession to the rank of Col. since the petitioner failed to make the grade based on his overall record of service sort comparative merit. It is however not known what were the exact contents of the petitioner's said statutory complaint dated the 27th April 1987, but it may safely be presumed that whatever grievances he had in the matter upto that stage including fresh consideration held in September, 1985 and special review held in October 1986 must have been ventilated by the petitioner in the said statutory complaint dated the 27th April 1987, but the said complaint was rejected by the Government after due consideration by the said order dated the 19th January, 1988. Since the said order of the 19th January, 1988 of the Government of India was directly assailed by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition which was rejected by the Allahabad High Court the petitioner cannot reagitate in the present writ petition the self-same matter including his grievances relating to his supersession in the fresh consideration and special review (fresh ). Again, as we have seen, the petitioner filed the earlier writ petition in Allahabad High Court in January, 1990 long after he was denied promotion in the first review held in November, 1987 and the final review held in November-December, 1988. In the earlier writ petition, as it appears from paragraph-21 of the present writ petition, the petitioner specifically pleaded at the first ground that the petitioner was not recommended for promotion in the first review and final review. In that earlier writ petition the petitioner also specifically prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of acting Col. In that earlier writ petition the petitioner also specifically prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of acting Col. Since the earlier writ petition was moved after the petitioner was denied promotion in all considerations upto the stage of final review and since the petitioner also was fully aware, at that time, of the results of such considerations upto the stage of final review and since the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition inspite of all the facts of denial of promotion to the petitioner upto the stage of final review, the petitioner cannot now over again ask this Court to consider the question of his promotion afresh on merits inspite of the dismissal of his earlier writ petition by the Allahabad High Court. ( 7 ) THE petitioner, it seems, is fully aware of this predicament and has sought to make some clever exercises for the purpose of giving a seemingly fresh cause of action for filing the present writ petition. Apart from claiming promotion in the present writ petition the petitioner has ,prayed for quashing an order dated 7-1-91 Annexure-O and Circular dated 23-4-92 Annexure-P to the writ petition. Both these order and Circular are of dates subsequent to the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the Allahabad High Court. Now let us see what are these two order and Circular. By the impugned order dated 7-1-91 Annexure-O to the writ petition the Central Government after considering the statutory complaint dated the 15th February, 1990 submitted by the petitioner against his supersession for promotion to the rank of A/col. and after perusal of relevant records rejected the said complaint as the Government was satisfied that no injustice had been done to him in this regard. It is therefore evident that the said order was passed by the Government in the background of the petitioner's statutory complaint dated the 15th February, 1990. The contents of the said statutory complaint have not however been divulged by the petitioner in this writ petition. But obviously it relates to his supersession. Since the question of his supersession was also a subject matter in the earlier writ petition this cannot be reagitad in this writ petition taking clue from the Government of India order dated 7-1-91. The contents of the said statutory complaint have not however been divulged by the petitioner in this writ petition. But obviously it relates to his supersession. Since the question of his supersession was also a subject matter in the earlier writ petition this cannot be reagitad in this writ petition taking clue from the Government of India order dated 7-1-91. Moreover it has also to be noticed that the statutory complaint which was disposed of by the Government by order dated 7-1-91 was itself submitted on 15th February, 1990, that is, one month after the earlier writ petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. If is evident that the said complaint dated 15th February, 1990 was cleverly submitted by the petitioner after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition as a speculative measure for inventing a seemingly new ground for approaching the Court again over the self-same grievance of his supersession which grievance was earlier turned down by the Allahabad High Court. That apart no good ground on merit also has been projected by the petitioner as to why the Government order dated 7-1-91 by which the Government after perusal of the relevant records noted its satisfaction brat no injustice had been done to the petitioner in this regard, should be quashed. Then again, the petitioner has filed this writ petition only in August, 1992 against the Government order dated the 7th January, 1991. This delay of more than if year in moving the present writ petition against the Government order dated the 7th January, 1991 has not been explained in the writ petition although in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner made an abortive attempt to explain the delay by taking various untenable and vague excuses like the issue was debated by the petitioner from 9 Sep. 91 to 20 Apr. 92 etc. Such explanation is nothing but a lame excuse which is wholly untenable. The writ petition is therefore also hit by untenable delay. The other document which has been imported by the petitioner as an excuse for filing the present writ petition is the Circular dated the 23rd April, 1992 Annexure-P to the writ petition. The sore point for the petitioner is that the said Circular threatens in general disciplinary/administrative action for submission of repeated complaints on the same subject when there are no fresh or additional inputs to justify such an action. The sore point for the petitioner is that the said Circular threatens in general disciplinary/administrative action for submission of repeated complaints on the same subject when there are no fresh or additional inputs to justify such an action. I do not understand how one can reasonably have a quarrel with the proposition contained in the Circular that repeated complaints on the same subject should not be submitted unless there are fresh or additional inputs to justify fresh complaint. Certainly an employee cannot be allowed to go on nagging the Authority by submitting repeated complaints at intervals on the self-same subject like playing a cracked gramophone record inspite of disposal of earlier complaints when there is no fresh or additional point for raising the self-same grievance in respect of the selfsame matter. I therefore find absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned general Circular dated the 23rd April, 1992 so as to warrant interference by this Court. I find absolutely no reason, not to speak of good reason, to come to the aid of the petitioner by granting any relief in this writ petition. It is however to be noted here that the petitioner who argued his case himself referred to certain decisions namely, Major K. D. Gupta v. Union of India, 1984 SCC 93; G. S. Broca v. State of Jandk, 1983 SCC 9 ; State of Gujarat v. S. Tripathy, 1986 SCC 273 ; P. K. Chinnasamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1988 SC 78 ; Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, AIR 1990 SC 1402 and the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated the 9th August, 1989 in P. S. Gill v. Union of India (Appeals No. 3612 and 3614 of 1988 ). Those decisions were rendered in the backdrop of the particular facts and circumstances of each case deciding different matters and those decisions are not attracted in the prevent case inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs to the respondents. Petition dismissed.