Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The appellant did not succeed in her suit seeking a declaration that she was “entitled to the upgraded post of Director with effect from 8.8.94 on which date such up-gradation fell due” and in obtaining a decree for an amount of Rs.4,15,488.00/- as damages with interest at the rate of 12% thereon. The main contention urged was that though her post of Deputy Director was entitled to be upgraded with effect from the said date consequent on acceptance of the proposals from the University Grants Commission (UGC) by her employer/the respondent University, to PROMOTE Adult Education by constituting a department in that regard putting the petitioner in-charge thereof, it was not implemented and consequent benefit was not granted, allegedly due to the pendency of a departmental action against her. This view was totally unjustified and calculated to defeat her entitlements. Therefore, she was eligible to the up-gradation of her post and consequent hike in the salary. The suit was dismissed without adverting to these aspects. So the appeal is to be allowed, the appellant contents. 2. In support of this, the main evidence relied on by the appellant is Ext.A18, a note to Syndicate submitted by the Registrar of University. Much emphasis is placed on paragraph-4 thereof which reads as under: - The university Grants Commission has in its letter dt. 12.12.1984 informed the University that staff working as Coordinator in the pay scale of Rs.1100-1600/- be redesignated as Assistant Director. It has also been stated in the letter that the staff working in a higher grade than the Co-ordinator be redesignated as Director in the Director’s grade if the Department of Adult Education has no Director’s at present. The University Grants Commission has also requested the University not to allow appointments of part-time staff or appointments of superannuated persons on the posts mentioned above. 3. Ext.A18 is only a note to the Syndicate. No evidence of acceptance of that note by the Syndicate or a decision by the Syndicate to upgrade the post held by the petitioner is produced in evidence. Nothing of that sort is brought to our notice. Of course, there is an averment in paragraph-10 of the plaint that there was such a decision by the Syndicate of the University. But her averment has been stoutly denied in paragraph-14 of the written statement. Nothing of that sort is brought to our notice. Of course, there is an averment in paragraph-10 of the plaint that there was such a decision by the Syndicate of the University. But her averment has been stoutly denied in paragraph-14 of the written statement. It is also disclosed therein that the Syndicate had not deferred the decision on the ground of the departmental action allegedly pending against her, but really decided to recruit a competent hand after advertising in the newspapers. 4. Therefore, Ext.A18 does not improve the case of the appellant for a declaration that her post was entitled to be upgraded as that of the Director and for consequent hike in emoluments. 5. A person can hold a post in an establishment based on a competent order or a decision of the establishment. It cannot be based on a proposal or its formal acceptance, if at all there is any. The up gradation can take place only after a competent order or a decision. Section 72 of the Calicut university Act, 1975 provides that “every salaried Officer and teacher of the University shall be appointed by a written order”. In the absence of a written order, merely because of Ext.A18 note submitted by the Registrar of the respondent/University to the Syndicate, the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim up-gradation of her post as if she was appointed as the Director. An authority can act and confer benefit on its subjects or employees only by reason of an order. In the absence of a competent order or a decision, the appellant cannot claim up-gradation or consequential damages as prayed for. A declaration can be granted only if entitlement thereto is shown by cogent proof on evidence. No effort is made by the appellant to produce any evidence in that regard or to call for such relevant orders or decision to bring on record. 6. Moreover, the appellant had agitated earlier before this Court for the very same benefit invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India filing O.P.No.2885/1986. It resulted in Ext.B1 Reading of Ext.B1 reveals that the very same issue had been unsuccessfully litigated before this court by the appellant. Ext.B1 reveals as follows: The question which the petitioner poses in this Original Petition is as to whether she can be deprived of her claim for Headship of the Department of Adult Education. It resulted in Ext.B1 Reading of Ext.B1 reveals that the very same issue had been unsuccessfully litigated before this court by the appellant. Ext.B1 reveals as follows: The question which the petitioner poses in this Original Petition is as to whether she can be deprived of her claim for Headship of the Department of Adult Education. The relief which she seeks is the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution of the Syndicate of the University of Calicut dated 19.4.1986 to the effect that the post of Director and other posts sanctioned by the U.G.C. for implementation of the 16th point in the 20 point programme be filled up by direct recruitment displacing the petitioner from the Headship of the Department of Adult Education in her capacity as the Deputy Director of Adult Education. The other relief’s are incidental to the above. The position taken up by the university is that it does not propose to replace the petitioner as the head of the Department of Adult Education, but that does not automatically entitle the petitioner to insist that she shall be redesignated as Director with the higher scale of salary. The Programme for Eradication of Adult Illiteracy is a separate scheme sanctioned and funded by the U.G.C. The petitioner has no right to claim that she shall be the Head of that programme only by reason of the fact that she is the Head of the Department of Adult Education which was formerly put in charge of the implementation of the NAEP scheme. It is also asserted that the University has taken a decision at its meeting held on 21st April, 1989 to invite applications for appointment of Director for implementation of the 16th point programme under the 20 point programme. 7. Thus her entitlement for Directorship and consequent higher scale of salary has been negatived by this Court. 8. Necessarily, having agitated the matter and failed; she cannot re-agitate it once again in yet another proceedings. Therefore, the court below is justified in dismissing the suit based on the principles of resjudicata as well. Whatever relief she was entitled ought to have been claimed there. Otherwise, it shall be taken as relinquished, following the principles in Order 2 rule 2 C.P.C. 9. Therefore, the court below is justified in dismissing the suit based on the principles of resjudicata as well. Whatever relief she was entitled ought to have been claimed there. Otherwise, it shall be taken as relinquished, following the principles in Order 2 rule 2 C.P.C. 9. Moreover, section 72(3) of the Calicut University Act makes certain provisions for resolution of dispute between the members of the staff and the university. It provides for a reference to University Appellate Tribunal statutorily constituted and manned by a judicial officer not below the rank of a District Judge as provided in Section 65. Therefore, if at all there was a dispute, it ought to have been referred to that Tribunal. On that ground, the suit was not maintainable. 10. Thus in the light of the relief’s claimed in the suit, of the pleadings and evidence on record and of the position of law as discussed above, we need not consider other evidence on record, which does not, in any way, confer the benefit of upgradation of the post of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason for interference in this appeal. 11. Appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly with costs.