Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 15. 2000. 3. The petitioner has stated that he had joined in the post of Office Assistant, on 20.4.1972, in the Dharmapuri District Unit of State Trading Scheme Department, which was later re-designated as Internal Audit and Statutory Boards, Audit Department. He was promoted as a Record Clerk, with effect from 10. 1975. The petitioners service was regularised from the said date. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Junior Assistant in the month of March, 1989. Later, he had been reverted as a record Clerk, with effect from 25. 1990, for want of vacancy. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been promoted as a Junior Assistant cum Typist, with effect from 26. 1995. Meanwhile, the respondents had given promotion to V.P.Perumal and Subramaniam, who were junior in service to the petitioner, overlooking his claims. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.3853 of 1996, for fixing his seniority above certain others, who were said to be his juniors. By an order, of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 10. 1998, made in O.A.No.3853 of 1996, the original application filed by the petitioner had been dismissed, as withdrawn. The learned counsel had also submitted that no liberty had been given to the petitioner to pray for a similar relief, by way of further proceedings. In such circumstances, the present writ petition cannot be maintained, as it is hit by the principle of res judicata. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original application filed by the petitioner, in O.A.No.3853 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying for a similar relief, had been withdrawn, based on the oral assurance given by the officials of the respondent Department. Therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. 7. 6. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original application filed by the petitioner, in O.A.No.3853 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying for a similar relief, had been withdrawn, based on the oral assurance given by the officials of the respondent Department. Therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. 7. In view of he submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable in law. It is clear, from the records available before this Court, that the petitioner had filed an original application, in O.A.No.3853 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying for a similar relief, as in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner had preferred to withdraw the said original application. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner, on 10. 1998, dismissing the original application, as withdrawn. No liberty had been granted to the petitioner to pursue further proceedings for seeking similar reliefs. In such circumstances, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be maintained, as it would be hit by the principle of res judicata. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.