Judgment : 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.31064 of 2005 dated 08.12.2010 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent with a direction to confer notional promotion to the post of Director, Tamil Development Culture Department from the date on which his junior one Selvaraj was promoted i.e from 28.01.2011 with all monetary and other benefits due to him by passing necessary orders, which shall be complied with, within a period of eight weeks. 2. The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed as Project Officer in the erstwhile Tamil Culture Department on 21.05.1979 which was merged with the Tamil Development Department in the year 1980 and after the constitution of the said Tamil Development and Culture Department, he was transferred along with the post as Project Officer. The petitioner has passed Ph.D. in the year 1983 in History and Archaeology, based on his research in "Tamil Inscription and literature". 3. As per G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 06.09.1989, the Government has ordered that the Project Officer in the Tamil Culture Department is equivalent to the post of Assistant Director in Tamil Development Department with identical scale of pay. The respondent was senior in the cadre of Assistant Director eligible for the next avenue of promotion to the post of Deputy Director. When the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer in the cadre of Assistant Director on 21.05.1979, his juniors M/s Selvaraj and Duraisamy were appointed as Assistant Directors on 10.12.1979 and 25.08.1981 respectively. The said Selvaraj was promoted as Deputy Director ignoring the claim of the respondent. Hence, the respondent approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.632 of 1993. The said O.A. Was dismissed by the Tribunal, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the respondent was senior to other two persons named above in the cadre of Assistant Director, in the Judgment dated 11.08.1995. Thereafter, the respondent was promoted as Deputy Director of Tamil Development Department from the date of promotion of his junior namely Selvaraj viz., 09.01.1992 as per G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 25.02.1998. The said Junior Selvaraj was subsequently promoted as Director and on reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.04.1995. Thereafter, the respondent was promoted as Deputy Director of Tamil Development Department from the date of promotion of his junior namely Selvaraj viz., 09.01.1992 as per G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 25.02.1998. The said Junior Selvaraj was subsequently promoted as Director and on reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.04.1995. The claim of the respondent for further promotion as Director was rejected on the ground that the respondent did not possesses necessary qualification for the post of Director. Hence, the respondent again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3922 of 1988 and challenged the appointment of said Selvaraj as Director and prayed for a direction to treat the respondent as deemed to have been promoted as Director from the date of promotion of his junior namely Selvaraj. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 03.07.2002 set aside the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 25.02.1998 and directed the Government to reconsider the claim of the respondent to the post of Director of Tamil Nadu Development Department. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.5647 of 2003 and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 24.02.2003. Thereafter, the Government rejected the request of the respondent by issuing G.O.Ms.No.219, Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Endowment Department dated 28.10.2003, which was challenged on various grounds including the order which is in violation of findings made in W.P.No.5647 of 2003 dated 24.02.2003. 5. The said writ petition was resisted by the Department contending that the respondent was not having Ph.D degree in Tamil and therefore as per the qualification prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.71 Tamil Development Culture Department dated 18.04.1990, he was rightly denied promotion. The said stand was negatived by the learned Single Judge taking note of the earlier order passed giving a specific finding that the respondent is a fully qualified person, eligible for promotion, against which, this writ appeal is filed. 6. We have perused the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5647 of 2003 dated 24.02.2003. In the said order, it is held thus: "The Government has come up against the order passed by the Tribunal has directed the Department to consider the case of the First respondent for promotion to the post of Director of Tamil Development. In the said order, it is held thus: "The Government has come up against the order passed by the Tribunal has directed the Department to consider the case of the First respondent for promotion to the post of Director of Tamil Development. That promotion was denied to him, perhaps on the reasoning that he is not M.A. in Tamil and he is also not a Tamil scholar. In fact, there seems to be a previous history to all this, because the first respondent had one right up to the Supreme Court to establish his seniority over Thiru Selvaraj, fourth respondent before the Tribunal. It is therefore that the question fell for the post of Director of Tamil Development, wherein the Government has titled in favour of Thiru Selvaraj holding that the first respondent did not have the proper qualification. 2. It is an admitted position that the first respondent is M.A. It is also admitted position that he is also holding a Doctorate. There is also a list of articles and journals,which papers include the papers read in World Tamil Conference and South Indian History Congress. These are also the materials provided by the first respondent in his original Application to suggest that he has composed poetry on the works of M.Ve.Venugopala Pillai, Thiruvallur and Deveneyappavanar. Considering all these, the Tribunal has given a direction to consider his case also as a Tamil Scholar of Repute. 3. We do not think anything is wrong in this approach of the Tribunal. If the Ph.D. Is earned by the respondent on the Tamil inscriptions, it cannot be said that he is not a Tamil Scholar. However, the Government would reconsider the decision in the light of the reasons given by the Tribunal. The writ petition has no merits and it is dismissed in limine. The writ petition is also not maintainable due to the non-joinder of Thiru Selvaraj to this petition. No costs........"(Emphasis supplied) 7. As rightly stated by the learned Single Judge, the said order has become final and therefore the appellant/department has no right to state that the first respondent has not possessed proper qualification for the post of Director of the Tamil Development. The first respondent's qualification having been already considered as eligible by this Court, the State is not entitled to reargue this matter again. 8. The first respondent's qualification having been already considered as eligible by this Court, the State is not entitled to reargue this matter again. 8. "In the decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 (M.Nagabhushana v.State of Karnataka) in paragraphs 12 and 13 it is held thus, "12. The principles of res judicata are of universal application as they are based on two age-old principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eademn causa meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of res judicata is common to all civilised system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should for ever set the controversy at rest. 13. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties." Further, in paragraphs 21 and 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus, "21. Following all these principles a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra ( (1990) 2 SCC 715 ) laid down the following principle: (SCC p. 741, para 35) “35. Following all these principles a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra ( (1990) 2 SCC 715 ) laid down the following principle: (SCC p. 741, para 35) “35. … an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject-matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.” 22. In view of such authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of this Court, there can be no doubt that the principles of constructive res judicata, as explained in Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC, are also applicable to writ petitions." (Emphasis Supplied) In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed its earlier Constitutional Bench decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1150 (Devilal Modi v. STO); (1977) 2 SCC 806 (State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain); (1990) 2 SCC 715 (Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra); and (1998) 3 SCC 573 (K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi)." 9. Admittedly, the respondent's seniority over the said Selvaraj was already determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Civil Appeal No.7586 of 1995 dated 11.8.1995. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has made out a case to quash the impugned order by the Government before the learned Single Judge, which was rightly quashed with a direction to confer notional promotion to the post of Director of Tamil Development to the respondent from the date on which his junior Selvaraj was promoted that was from 28.03.1993. As the respondent is already retired from service in the year 2007, the monetary benefits arising out of the notional promotion alone was ordered. The respondent is entitled to get notional revision of salary and get arrears of pension alone from the date of his retirement. 10. As the respondent is already retired from service in the year 2007, the monetary benefits arising out of the notional promotion alone was ordered. The respondent is entitled to get notional revision of salary and get arrears of pension alone from the date of his retirement. 10. The appellant is directed to calculate the said arrears of pension and other retirement benefits due to the notional promotion as ordered by the learned Single Judge, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.