Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge an order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the second respondent, Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai as well as the order dated 13.03.2012 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.209, Higher Education Department, dated 02.09.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.11, Higher Education Department, dated 3.2.2012 to the petitioner by promoting him to the post of College Librarian by way of transfer of service in Government college on par with his junior. 2. When this writ petition came up on 5.6.2012, notice of motion was ordered. Subsequently, on behalf of the second respondent a counter affidavit dated 20.2.2013 has been filed. 3. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.20530 of 2008 seeking for a direction to consider his case for appointment as College Librarian in any one of the Government colleges by recruiting him by transfer of service on regular basis as per the existing rules. The said writ petition was heard along with 4 other writ petitions and that a common order dated 27.08.2008 came to be passed. This court had allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. When in respect of the other writ petitioners, an order came to be passed including one V.Chandra, that became the subject matter of another writ petition in W.P.No.18945 of 2008. There petitioners claimed for implementation of the ratio of 1 : 2 for appointment to the post of Librarians in terms of the special rules in G.O.Ms.No.611, Higher Education Department, dated 7.4.1979 and to appoint them in the post of Librarians. That writ petition was disposed of in the light of the earlier order and a direction was given to the respondents to consider and pass orders. It was very late that the respondent State woke up and filed a writ appeal with defective stage. The writ appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay of 295 days. Thereafter, a SLP was filed before the Supreme Court, which was again dealt with at the unnumbered stage. It was very late that the respondent State woke up and filed a writ appeal with defective stage. The writ appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay of 295 days. Thereafter, a SLP was filed before the Supreme Court, which was again dealt with at the unnumbered stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and observed that the single judge of this court had correctly refused to take note of the impending amendment to the rules and directed the claim of those persons to be considered for being appointed as College Librarians by recruitment by transfer. 4. The petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Bursar in the Raja Serfoji Arts College, Thanjavur sent a representation, dated 7.2.2011 that he should be appointed as a college Librarian in the Kumbakonam Kundavai Nachiar Government Womens College. The petitioner also informed that in respect of several others, the Government had granted appointment as librarians. However, by the impugned order dated 01.02.2011, the Director of Collegiate Education, the second respondent, informed the petitioner that only those persons who are in ministerial service alone can be posted as a Graduate Librarian by appointment by transfer. Hence the petitioner, who was working as Bursar in the Raja Serfoji Arts Colleges and is not a member of the ministerial service, cannot be granted the post of Graduate Librarian. 5. In the meanwhile, the Government in order to avoid contempt proceedings being initiated against them, had issued two Government Orders, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.209, Higher Education Department, dated 02.09.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.11, Higher Education Department, dated 3.2.2012, implementing those orders and granted promotion. But in the case of the petitioner, his request was once again rejected by an order dated 13.03.2012 stating that he is not eligible for appointment to the post of College librarian. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was stated that the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013. Since the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Bursar, which comes under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service, though not a feeder category to the post of librarian and he had already joined the post as Bursar, the petitioner was permitted to retire from the Government service on attaining the age of superannuation. Since the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Bursar, which comes under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service, though not a feeder category to the post of librarian and he had already joined the post as Bursar, the petitioner was permitted to retire from the Government service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has been working as Bursar with effect from 04.11.2009 and continued till his retirement on 31.01.2013 and hence the prayer of the petitioner has to be rejected. 7. The entire exercise by the petitioner looks as an exercise in fidelity. First of all, the petitioner's claim that from the post of the Office Superintendent, he is entitled to be appointed as Librarian itself does not stand to reason. The Special Rules were framed by the Government by G.O.Ms.No.2476, Department of Education, Science and Technology, dated 09.11.1982, wherein two methods of recruitment have been given and in respect of Graduate Librarian, one by direct recruitment and other by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the post of Superintendent, Managers, Assistants, Junior Assistants, including Store Keepers and Clerical Librarian and Typist in the Tamilnadu Ministerial Service in the Collegiate Education Department. In the case of Librarian, again it is either by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the posts of Assistants, Junior Assistants, including Store Keepers and Clerical librarians and Typists in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial service in the Collegiate Education Department. It was also stated that promotion is to be done by way of 1 : 2 ratio. 8. But, subsequently, after the acceptance of Rasthogi Committee's report, the University Grants Commission had declared that the post of librarian is a teaching post and such posts will have to be filled up by direct recruitment through an All India advertisement. The State Government accepting the same had issued G.O.Ms.No.103, Higher Education Department, dated 18.05.2009. Further the Special rules were also amended earlier to provide recruitment for the post of College Librarian vide G.O.Ms.No.113, Higher Education Department, dated 23.03.1999. Therefore, the scope of non teaching staff working in the college seeking for promotion to teaching post on the basis of a ratio may not arise. These facts were not noted in the earlier round of litigation and the court merely went on the ratio provided in the Special rules. Therefore, the scope of non teaching staff working in the college seeking for promotion to teaching post on the basis of a ratio may not arise. These facts were not noted in the earlier round of litigation and the court merely went on the ratio provided in the Special rules. Even the Special Rules are subject to further development including amendment made by the Government. Unfortunately, the Government Pleader never brought the same to the notice of the court when the matters were argued before the single Judge. Since in the earlier order there was only a direction to consider, it has been considered and rejected. 9. In the case of the petitioner, he cannot seek parity with the other persons who got the benefit through the G.Os referred to by him. In the case of other persons, under the threat of contempt, the State Government to solvage itself had implemented the order by two Government orders. Such an order cannot be quoted as a precedent in the case of the petitioner as held by the Supreme Court in Col.B.J.Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and others reported in 2006 (11) SCC 709 and in paragraph 26, it was observed as follows : "A particular judgment of the High Court may not be challenged by the State where the financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation. It may also not be challenged due to negligence or oversight of the dealing officers or on account of wrong legal advice, or on account of the non-comprehension of the seriousness or magnitude of the issue involved. However, when similar matters subsequently crop up and the magnitude of the financial implications is realised, the State is not prevented or barred from challenging the subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others. Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a “pick-and-choose” method only to exclude petitioners on account of mala fides or ulterior motives. Be that as it may. On the facts and circumstances, neither the principle of res judicata nor the principle of estoppel is attracted. The administrative law principles of legitimate expectation or fairness in action are also not attracted. Be that as it may. On the facts and circumstances, neither the principle of res judicata nor the principle of estoppel is attracted. The administrative law principles of legitimate expectation or fairness in action are also not attracted. Therefore, the fact that in some cases the validity of the circular dated 29-10-1999 (corresponding to the Defence Ministry circular dated 11-9-2001) has been upheld and that decision has attained finality will not come in the way of the State defending or enforcing its circular dated 11-9-2001." 10. In addition to the same, from 2009, the petitioner was enjoying the post of Bursar and under the relevant rule, there is no scope even for transfer of the petitioner's service from the post of Bursar to Librarian. It must also be noted that the petitioner, not even for a single day, worked as a College Librarian and had worked only in the administrative side. Therefore, the claim that he should be given appointment to the post of librarian with consequential monetary benefits is totally unjustified. In such circumstances, without rendering even a day's work in that post, the petitioner cannot seek for any monetary benefit for the post which was never held by him. Hence there is no case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.