JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the Puducherry Government. According to him, he was not selected on the sole ground that he did not undergo +2 course. According to him, after passing 10th Standard, he underwent Diploma Course and the same is higher than +2. It is submitted that a person, who has passed Diploma could join in the second year of a Degree course, while a person, who has passed +2 could join only in the first year of the Degree course. Hence, according to him, he should have been selected for the post of Lower Division Clerk. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) has submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the matter is concerning to recruitment to a Government service and the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1994 Writ L.R. 690 [Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Madras600 009 and others Vs. P.Hepzi Vimalabai]. 4. In view of paragraph-36 of the decision cited above, I am of the view that the petitioner should approach only the Central Administrative Tribunal where the petitioner could urge the points which he raised before this Court. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. This will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.