Judgment :- The petitioner is working as a Supervisor in the Hand Made Paper Unit at Thogur in Thanjavur Taluk of the respondent Board. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.1775 of 1992 seeking for a direction to appoint the petitioner as a Supervisor. 2. This Court by an order dated 27. 1997 allowed the Writ Petition and directed the petitioner to be appointed as a Supervisor. The Board implemented the said order and appointed the petitioner as a Supervisor Gr.I vide proceedings dated 11. 1997. The matter should have ended therein. However, the petitioner after having joined as a Supervisor, gave a representation dated 20.3.1998 stating that he should be given retrospective seniority. He also cited the case of one Sampath Kumar, whose name does not find place either in the Selection list or reserved list, was working in the Board for 12 years and therefore all the more reason, the petitioner should be given a seniority on a retrospective basis. 3. The Board considering the representation of the petitioner by an order dated 25. 1998 rejected his request. It was also stated by the Board that they have already implemented the order passed in the Writ Petition No.1775 of 1992 and the question of now granting the retrospective seniority fixation will not arise. It is against this order dated 25. 1998, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The Writ Petition was admitted on 20.10.1998. Pursuant to the notice, a detailed counter affidavit dated 9. 2000 has been filed by the Chief Executive officer of the respondent Board. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner is able to prove that the person, whose name is not either in the selection list or reserved list is working, all the more reason, the petitioners request for retrospective seniority should be considered by the Board. 6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get along with the appointment a retrospective seniority with similarly placed persons is an issue the petitioner should have raised in the earlier Writ Petition No.1775 of 1992 and he cannot get a partial relief in that Writ Petition and thereafter initiate a second proceedings for getting retrospective seniority. 6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get along with the appointment a retrospective seniority with similarly placed persons is an issue the petitioner should have raised in the earlier Writ Petition No.1775 of 1992 and he cannot get a partial relief in that Writ Petition and thereafter initiate a second proceedings for getting retrospective seniority. When the petitioner has a right to claim before the Court and he did not claim such a right in the earlier Writ Petition for the reasons best known to him, such a right cannot be renewed by filing a second Writ Petition. In the light of the above, if at all there was any right, it should get terminated when this Court passed an order granting only the limited relief for appointment. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was not aware of the existence of Sampath Kumars posting and therefore when he came to know, he made a representation, cannot be accepted. It is also significant to note that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Board, it is clearly stated that the petitioner originally applied for the post of Superintendent and he did not apply for the post of Supervisor. Separate interviews were conducted and even for holding the post of Supervisor, the petitioner had not undertaken any training in the Managers course in the hand made paper industry. However, that issue cannot be gone into now. The petitioner has successfully got an order with a direction to appoint him as Supervisor. But, in any event, till date, the petitioner has not denied the averment made in the counter affidavit dated 9. 2000 and had not come forward to state that he was fully qualified or that he was in possession of certificate, as required for the said post. The learned counsel for the petitioner merely contended that the issue has already been concluded in the earlier Writ Petition filed by him. 8. But a perusal of the earlier order merely shows that the petitioners qualification was not based upon any material produced by the petitioner, namely the certificate course undergone by him. But, on the contrary, a list dated 17. 1991 produced by the Board was taken as a basis, in which the petitioners name finds a place as No.2 in the reserve list. But, on the contrary, a list dated 17. 1991 produced by the Board was taken as a basis, in which the petitioners name finds a place as No.2 in the reserve list. Therefore, by logic, this Court held that if the petitioner was not qualified, his name would not have been included in the reserve list. Be that as it may, since the petitioner ought to have raised such an issue in the original Writ Petition, he cannot be allowed to raise retrospective seniority issue at this point of time, namely after a period of 16 years. Under the circumstances, the Writ Petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.