Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to approve the admission of the petitioner in Diploma in Teacher Education Course, in the 6th respondent Institute for the year 2003-2004 and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to write the ensuing second year Diploma in Teacher Education examinations. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner was admitted in the Diploma in Teacher Education course, in the 6th respondent Institute, for the academic year 2003-2004. The 6th respondent institute is a recognised Institute aided by the Government of Tamil nadu. On 19. 2003, the petitioner had been admitted in the 6th respondent Institute to undergo Diploma in Teacher Education course. At the end of the first year, the petitioner was not issued the Hall ticket to write the First Year Diploma in Teacher Education examinations which were scheduled to commence, on 27. 2004. Along with the petitioner, seven other students were also not allowed to write the examinations. Therefore, they had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.21226 of 2004, praying for a mandamus to direct the respondents to permit them to write the First Year Diploma in Teacher Education examinations. By an order, dated 27. 2004, this Court had issued a direction to the respondents, therein, as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, all the eight students, including the petitioner, had written the First Year Diploma in Teacher examinations. However, the respondents did not publish the results of the first year examinations. It was learnt that the sixth respondent Institute had admitted 48 students, under the management quota, for the academic year 2003-2004 and therefore, the admissions of eight students were beyond the intake capacity under the management quota, which was only 40 students. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the order had been passed by this Court, on 27. 2004, the second respondent by an order, dated 28. 2004, had directed the 6th respondent Institute to admit only 32 students, under the management quota, for the academic year 2004-2005, since the eight students, including the petitioner have been admitted in excess of the intake capacity, during the year 2003-2004. 2004, the second respondent by an order, dated 28. 2004, had directed the 6th respondent Institute to admit only 32 students, under the management quota, for the academic year 2004-2005, since the eight students, including the petitioner have been admitted in excess of the intake capacity, during the year 2003-2004. However, the second respondent, who is the approving authority for the Diploma in Teacher Course had approved the admission of the eight students, including the petitioner, by an order, dated 28. 2004. They had been permitted to undergo the second year course in the 6th respondent Institute. Having completed the second year in Diploma in Teacher Education course, during the academic year 2004-2005, they had also paid the examination fee of Rs.150/-. However, the respondents had not issued the hall tickets to the petitioner and the other seven students for writing the second year Diploma in Teacher Education examinations. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.23428 of 2006. By an order, dated 18. 2006, this Court was pleased to grant an order of interim direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the second year Diploma in Teacher Education examinations. However, the respondents did not issue the hall tickets to the petitioner for writing the second year examinations. 5. It has also been stated that there has been a dispute between the educational agency of the sixth respondent Institute and the Tamil Nadu Evangelical Lutheran Church. A writ petition in W.P.No.24675 of 2005, had been filed before this Court, with regard to the selection of the candidates for admission for the academic years 20052007. Further, the management of the 6th respondent Institute had also filed a writ appeal, in W.A.No.250 of 2006, challenging the order, dated 12. 2005, made in W.P.M.P.No.26994 and 26995 of 2005, in W.P.No.24675 of 2005 and it is still pending, on the file of this Court. However, since the petitioner had been admitted in the 6th respondent Institute to undergo the Diploma in Teacher Education course for the academic year 2003-2004, and as she had completed her two year course during the academic year 2004-2005, she is not in way connected with the dispute raised before this Court, in W.P.No.24675 of 2005. 6. However, since the petitioner had been admitted in the 6th respondent Institute to undergo the Diploma in Teacher Education course for the academic year 2003-2004, and as she had completed her two year course during the academic year 2004-2005, she is not in way connected with the dispute raised before this Court, in W.P.No.24675 of 2005. 6. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.25049 of 2007, praying for a direction to the respondents therein to permit the petitioner to write the second year examinations scheduled to be held in the month of July/August 2007. This Court, by an order, dated 38. 2007, made in M.P.No.1 of 2007, in W.P.No.25049 of 2007, was pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the second year examinations. However, since the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.23428 of 2006 was still pending, on the file of this Court, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw W.P.No.25049 of 2007. The miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in W.P.No.23428 of 2006, praying for an interim direction to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the second year examinations, commencing from 28. 2008, was dismissed by this Court, since the writ petition in W.P.No.23428 of 2006 had become infructuous. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the sixth respondent Institute had deliberately admitted eight candidates, including the petitioner herein, for the academic year 2003-2004, beyond the sanctioned strength knowing full well that the permitted strength, as per the recommendation granted by the National Council for Teacher Education, was only 80 in number. Further, the 6th respondent Institute was not inclined to adjust the eight candidates within the permitted strength for the subsequent academic year despite the clear instructions issued by the second respondent, on 28. 2004. It has been further stated that the petitioner had filed a number of writ petitions and writ petition miscellaneous petitions before this Court praying for the same relief. In spite of several orders passed by this Court, denying the request of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking similar reliefs. 8. 2004. It has been further stated that the petitioner had filed a number of writ petitions and writ petition miscellaneous petitions before this Court praying for the same relief. In spite of several orders passed by this Court, denying the request of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking similar reliefs. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner has come before this Court, repeatedly, praying for the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the second year examinations of the Diploma in Teacher Education course conducted by the sixth respondent Teacher Training Institute, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 9. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.25049 of 2007 had been dismissed, by an order of this Court, dated 10. 2007, as withdrawn. However, nothing is seen from the order to support the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition was permitted by this Court to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same grounds and for the same relief, nor is there an endorsement made by the counsel to that effect. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, while dismissing the present writ petition, invoking the principle of res judicata. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.500/-to be paid by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from today. Post the writ petition on 29-07-2009, under the caption `for reporting compliance.