Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this writ petition earlier filed O.A.No.3619 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The prayer before the Tribunal was for a direction to appoint him as Night watchman as per the order dated 29.04.1999. 2. The Tribunal by its order dated 08.07.1999 admitted the Original Application and ordered notice to the respondents. On notice from the Tribunal, the District Registrar, Villupuram filed a reply affidavit dated 04.10.1999. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that he was not selected since the petitioner had not completed 35 years and the petitioner has got one more year and further chances of getting employment. The next chance in the waiting list was one Balakrishnan, who was at Sl.No.1. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the mater stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.42270 of 2006. 4. However, when the case came up before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner circulated a letter dated 22.11.2006 seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition on the basis of the consent given by the petitioner. Long after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the present came to be filed. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order of the third respondent dated 01.06.2007 and the subsequent order dated 23.11.2007 issued by the second respondent viz., the District Registrar and after setting aside the same seeks to comply with the order dated 29.04.1999 and to pass further orders. 6. By the order dated 01.06.2007, it was informed that pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal, his case was considered and since he was not having sufficient qualification, he cannot be appointed either in the present post or in any future post. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred a further revision to the Inspector General of registration on 12.06.2007. In the revision, in the Subject Column, he had stated that the order of Tribunal was not implemented in its true spirit and therefore, he wanted the Tribunal's order to be implemented. 7. This writ petition was admitted on 10.06.2008. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner's miscellaneous application for direction to give priority for being appointed as Night Watchmen was rejected by this Court by an order dated 19.08.2008. 8. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 16.08.2008. 7. This writ petition was admitted on 10.06.2008. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner's miscellaneous application for direction to give priority for being appointed as Night Watchmen was rejected by this Court by an order dated 19.08.2008. 8. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 16.08.2008. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner who had scored only 34 marks in the interview (SC/Non priority turn) was issued an appointment order erroneously and it was only a temporary one and even before joining duty, the error was found and therefore, the order was cancelled. The candidate who secured 35 marks in the interview was selected and posted as Watchman on 11.04.1999. The vacancy at the time was filled up by suitable candidate. Subsequently, policy decision was taken not to recruit any sub-staff and the post of Watchman are to be filled up only on contract basis from private sectors viz., TEXCO. It was also stated that M. Balakrishnan, who had secured 35 marks in the interview and who was aged 34 years 10 months and 17 days at the time of appointment, whereas the petitioner had secured 34 marks and was younger in age. 9. In the present case, the petitioner even after filing of the counter affidavit has not impleaded the said Balakrishnan, who has been appointed pursuant to the interview conducted. Right from the beginning, in the earlier writ petition as well in this writ petition, the stand of the respondent was that no such appointment was given to the petitioner and even the earlier appointment which was erroneously made was cancelled. 10. Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel contended that once appointment given cannot be cancelled without complying with principles of natural justice and placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 330 [Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others].There is no quarrel with the proposition of law expounded by the Supreme Court. 11. In the present case, the petition has not persuaded the remedy in the Original Application, in which he seeks a claim. When the OA got transferred to this Court and renumbered as writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the writ petition without seeking any liberty to file any subsequent writ petition in respect of the same cause of action. 12. When the OA got transferred to this Court and renumbered as writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the writ petition without seeking any liberty to file any subsequent writ petition in respect of the same cause of action. 12. Though the learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that it will not operate as res judicata, but this Court is not willing to agree with the said submission since the writ petition which he claimed relief was withdrawn. The learned Senior Counsel states that his client was given to understand that after withdrawal of the writ petition, they may consider his further appointment. 13. In the light of the said assertion, this Court directed the original file to be circulated for perusal. Accordingly, the original file was circulated and perused by this Court. Even the cancellation letter enclosed in the original file does not indicate that there was any promise made to the petitioner for any appointment. In any event, subsequent to the filing of the second writ petition after disclosure of the appointment of one Balakrishnan, in the place of the petitioner, the petitioner has not made him as party respondent. 14. In any event, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that supernumerary post may be created to accommodate the petitioner. Unfortunately, this Court do not have any such power to order the State Government to create a post to accommodate a person. A perusal of the earliest reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal shows that petitioner was informed that he was not selected. There was no attempt to make a challenge to his non-selection. On the other hand, the argument of the petitioner was that he has been appointed temporarily and that appointment cannot be cancelled. Such a contention goes contrary to the records produced before this Court. 15. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.