Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. .3. The petitioner has stated that after completing his plus two courses, in the month of March, 1989, he had applied for admission in B.V.Sc. Course, in the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, during the academic year 19891990. The petitioner belongs to Hindu Tholuva Naicker Community, which is classified as a Most Backward Class community, as per the relevant Government Orders. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Attur, had issued a community certificate, dated 6. 1989, indicating that the petitioner belongs to a Most Backward Class community. On the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner had got the admission in the respondent University, under the Most Backward Class community quota. 4. It has been further stated that while the petitioner was undergoing the B.V.Sc. Course, the respondent University had issued a communication, in the month of July, 1993, stating that he should get a fresh community certificate from the concerned Tahsildar. Therefore, the petitioner had applied to the Tahsildar, Attur. The said Tahsildar, had issued a community certificate, on 20.10.1993, stating that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Tholuva Naicker community, classified as a Backward Class. Thereafter, the respondent University had issued a show cause notice stating that the petitioner had issued a false certificate and that he had suppressed certain facts relating to the community to which he belongs, while getting his admission in B.V.Sc. course in the respondent University. 5. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court, challenging the said show cause notice. The said writ petition had been dismissed, on the ground that the proceedings under challenge was only a show cause notice and therefore, the petitioner could submit his explanation for the said show cause notice. Even though the petitioner had submitted an explanation to the said show cause notice, no further action had been taken. While so, the petitioner had completed the course in the year, 1996. However, the respondent University had issued a communication, stating that the results of the petitioner had been withheld as there were conflicting certificates issued by the same authority and that it has to be resolved by a competent Court of law. .6. While so, the petitioner had completed the course in the year, 1996. However, the respondent University had issued a communication, stating that the results of the petitioner had been withheld as there were conflicting certificates issued by the same authority and that it has to be resolved by a competent Court of law. .6. It has been further stated that the petitioner and one Arulanantha Krishnan had filed writ petitions before this Court, challenging the orders withholding their certificates. The writ petitions had been dismissed by this Court, by an order, dated 11. 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the counsel, who had appeared in the writ petition. However, Arulanantha Krishnan had filed an appeal, in W.A.No.672 of 2002 and it had been allowed holding that he could not be made to suffer in view of the fact that Hindu Tholuva Naicker community does not find a place in the backward class list, as well as in the Most Backward Class list. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner had got admission in the respondent University by committing fraud or by producing false community certificate or by making a false representation. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University had submitted that the petitioner had been provisionally admitted in B.V.Sc. Degree course, during the year 1989-1990, under the Most Backward Class quota, based on the community certificate issued by the Head Quarters, Deputy Tahilsdar, Attur, certifying that the petitioner belonged to Hindu Tholuva Naicker community, which is a Most Backward Class community. The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued instructions in Government Letter No.18734/BC&MBC/92-4, dated 23. 1993, stating that the community certificates issued by the revenue authorities for the Hindu Tholuva Naicker community, from 23. 1989 to 15. 1990, had not been issued properly, in accordance with law and therefore, the students belonging to such categories may be directed to produce fresh community certificates. 8. Purusant to the directions issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner had produced a fresh community certificate, dated 20.10.1993, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Attur, stating that he belonged to Hindu Tholuva Naicker-Backward Class community. 8. Purusant to the directions issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner had produced a fresh community certificate, dated 20.10.1993, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Attur, stating that he belonged to Hindu Tholuva Naicker-Backward Class community. Since there were two community certificates in respect of the petitioner, the Government, in its Letter No.5472/BC&MBC/93-1, dated 12. 1993, addressed to the District Collector, Salem, had requested him to take necessary action to cancel the Most Backward Class community certificate issued to the petitioner and to report the action taken in the said matter, to the Registrar of the respondent University, for taking appropriate action against the students who had got admission in B.V.Sc. in the respondent University by producing a false community certificates. .9. It has been further stated that the District Collector, Salem, had informed that, as per the report given by the Tahsildar, Attur, the community certificate stating "Tholuva Naicker-Most Backward Class" issued to the petitioner has been cancelled and it has been certified that the petitioner belongs to a Backward Class. The petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.9949 of 1996, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent University to release the results. The said writ petition had been dismissed by an order of this Court, dated 17. 1998, stating that it would be open to the petitioner to prove that he did not get admission in the respondent College, illegally. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.8957 of 1997, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, in Proc.No.8294/C2/93, dated 25. 1996, and to quash the same and to issue a direction to release the result of the examination and for the issuance of the provisional/degree certificates. By an order, dated 11. 1998, this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein stating that the petitioner had committed fraud by getting the community certificate, without disclosing his eligibility for the same. It had also been pointed out that the petitioner had prevented the eligible candidates from being admitted in the B.V.Sc. course in the respondent University and that he had got an undue and unfair advantage. It was further held that merely because the petitioner was allowed to continue in the course he would not be entitled to the discretionary relief from this Court. 11. course in the respondent University and that he had got an undue and unfair advantage. It was further held that merely because the petitioner was allowed to continue in the course he would not be entitled to the discretionary relief from this Court. 11. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the relief’s, as prayed for in the present writ petition. It is clear that the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.8957 of 1997, to quash the proceedings, in Proc.No.8294/C2/93, dated 25. 1996, and to issue a direction to the respondent therein to issue the provisional certificate, the degree certificate and the other certificates to the petitioner. This Court, by an order, dated 11. 1998, had dismissed the writ petition, in W.P.No.8957 of 1997, filed by the petitioner. Since the order of this Court, dated 11. 1998, had not been challenged by the petitioner, it had become final. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for the same cause of action. Therefore, the present writ petition cannot be sustained, as it would be hit by the principle of res judicata. Accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.