Judgment :- 1. The writ petitioner after completion of +2 course has joined the course of Bachelor of Pharmacy in Pant Institute of Technology, Pondicherry. The petitioner was awarded the B.Pharm. Degree. The Pondicherry University de-affiliation the Pant Institute of Technology in which the petitioner was doing B.Pharm course. The petitioner joined the said institution for the B.Pharm for the academic year 1990-1991 with his Registration No.18804. The said Pant Institute of Technology challenged the de-affiliated before this Honourable Court. This Honourable Court in the order passed in W.A.No.1110 of 1988, dated 12.08.1991, while dismissing the same, has observed that the students who are admitted to the institution in B.Pharm when the affiliation was in force prior to 19911992, the University of Pondicherry shall make alternative arrangement to enable them to complete their studies by accommodating them in any other valid affiliated Institution. Accordingly, the petitioner joined Sri Ramakrishna Institute of Paramedical Sciences, Coimbatore and completed the course. 2. After the completion of the said course, the petitioner was awarded the B.Pharm Degree in Pharmacy namely B.Pharm by the Pondicherry University. However, when the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu State Pharmacy Council namely the respondents 2 to 4, they refused to register the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to register the name of the petitioner on its rolls as Pharmacist with a further direction to permit the petitioner to practice as Pharmacist. 3. Mr.L.N.Pragasam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the order passed by this Honourable Court in W.P.No.9310 of 2000, dated 30.06.2009. The learned counsel further submitted that the said order has become final against the respondent and the case involved in the present case is identical to the said case. The learned counsel further submitted that the order passed by this Honourable Court was also followed subsequently in W.P.No.1455 of 2010, dated 03.03.2010. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been covered by the orders of this Honourable Court referred to above. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the order passed by this Honourable Court was also followed subsequently in W.P.No.1455 of 2010, dated 03.03.2010. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been covered by the orders of this Honourable Court referred to above. 4. This Honourable Court in W.P.No.1455 of 2010 dated 03.03.2010 after referring to the orders passed earlier by this Honourable Court in W.P.No.9310 of 2000, dated 30.06.2009, has held as follows: "4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very same issue came up before this Court in W.P.No.9310 of 2000 and by an order dated 30.06.2009, this Court allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to register the names of the petitioners on its rolls as their applications, which are said to have been submitted by the petitioners to the third respondent in 1995. the said exercise shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If any fee such as registration fee is due from the petitioners, the petitioners are directed to pay the same. 11. After the order was pronounced, the learned counsel for the third respondent-pharmacy council submitted that the petitioners may be directed to file fresh application as it would be difficult to search for the application filed in the year 1995. The petitioners are therefore directed to submit the copy of those applications said to have been filed in 1995 or file fresh applications to the third respondent along with the copy of this order." 5. Mrs.A.V.Bharathi, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.M.Gopikrishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent fairly submitted that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9310 of 2000 dated 30.06.2009 squarely applies to this Case. 6. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9310 of 2000 on 30.06.2009, the writ petition is allowed on similar terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed." It is not in dispute that the ratio laid down by this Court on earlier two occasions squarely apply to the present case on hand. 6. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9310 of 2000 on 30.06.2009, the writ petition is allowed on similar terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed." It is not in dispute that the ratio laid down by this Court on earlier two occasions squarely apply to the present case on hand. Therefore, in view of the same, the writ petition is allowed on the similar terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.