JUDGMENT 1. When these writ petitions came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners circulated a letter dated 07.01.2013 stating that this Court should not hear these writ petitions, as it has already disposed of similar writ petition. Hence, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to get appropriate orders from the Honourbale Acting Chief Justice. Since no orders have been obtained for posting these writ petitions before some other Judge, this Court is constrained to deal with these writ petitions. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugha Sundaram took notice for the respondents. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner in W.P.No.449 of 2013 (R.Souria Candiammalle) and the petitioner in W.P.450 of 2013 (K.Thirupathi) have already filed writ petition, along with two other persons, in W.P.No.15825 of 2012. In that writ petition, they have raised identical prayer that a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to implement G.O.Ms.No.86, School Education Department, dated 2.3.2011 in respect of the petitioners for the academic year 2012-2013. This Court found that G.O.Ms.No.86 enables the Government to transfer the teachers, who were appointed in the schools run by Kallar Reclamation Board functioning under Most Backward and De-notified Communities Welfare Department. In the annexure to the said G.O. the names of the teachers, who are liable to be transferred from the Schools run by Kallar Reclamation Board to other schools run by the State Government. The Government Order itself imposes several conditions including the condition that in the parent department, they should not have any disciplinary action against them. Therefore, in the earlier writ petition, this Court held that the order passed by the State Government cannot be enforced by an order of this Court as it only enables the authority to transfer the teachers and if at all, the petitioners are aggrieved by the conditions imposed in the said G.O., they should approach the State Government for modifying the conditions. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 21.06.2012. 4. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1310 of 2012. The Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the said writ appeal by order dated 09.07.2012. In paragraphs 3 & 4 of the order, the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed as follows:- "3. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 21.06.2012. 4. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1310 of 2012. The Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the said writ appeal by order dated 09.07.2012. In paragraphs 3 & 4 of the order, the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed as follows:- "3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the Government has already enforced the G.O. in question, the appellants/writ petitioners need not approach the Government by submitting a representation as directed by the learned single Judge. In any case, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Government has already accepted the representation given by the appellants. 4. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, the writ appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation." It is not clear as to why the petitioners seek the very same relief in subsequent year, especially when their case was rejected by this Court, which was also upheld by the Division Bench. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to another order passed in W.P.19107 of 2012, dated 20.07.2012. The petitioner in W.P.451 of 2013 has earlier filed the said Writ Petition (W.P.No.19107 of 2012) seeking for very same relief and this Court disposed of the said writ petition (W.P.19107/2012) by order dated 20.07.2012, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Director of School Education, who was also directed to consider the same in the light of the Rules in force as on date. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to another writ petition in W.P.No.25497 of 2012 filed by some other employees, which was also disposed of by this Court by order dated 08.10.2012, with a direction to the respondents to implement the G.O.Ms.No.86, in due course without any further delay. 6. It is not clear as to how the orders passed in those two writ petitions in any way benefit the case of the petitioners herein. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.449 & 450 of 2013 viz., R.Souria Candiammalle and K.Thirupathi had also filed Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.1505 of 2012 before the Division Bench. The said Contempt Petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 02.11.2012. 7. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.449 & 450 of 2013 viz., R.Souria Candiammalle and K.Thirupathi had also filed Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.1505 of 2012 before the Division Bench. The said Contempt Petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 02.11.2012. 7. In the two orders referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no reference to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15825 of 2012, dated 21.06.2012, which was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.1310 of 2012. Therefore, it cannot be a precedent. If at all, the petitioners want the Government Order to be implemented, which imposes certain conditions, the same shall be implemented in the light of the conditions set out therein. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners circulated a letter dated 07.01.2013 asking the matter to be posted before some other Judge, especially when the earlier order passed by this Court, which was upheld by the Division Bench as referred to above. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 9. For the above reasons, these writ petitions will stand dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.