Judgment : F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition inter alia seeks for the following reliefs : i) By a suitable Writ, Order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order / intimation dated 01.03.2005 (Exhibit-O herein) issued by the Respondent No.3 informing the Petitioner that his request to protect his seniority in the post of an Executive Engineer (Civil) is once again rejected. ii) By a suitable Writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the Petitioner was / is entitled for promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 05.12.1997 or from the date when his Junior came to be promoted i.e. 07.03.1998, and accordingly the Respondents be directed to grant the said deemed date of promotion to the Petitioner. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed on 3rd February 1975 as a Sub Engineer (Civil) with Respondent No.1 Corporation. In May 1984, the Petitioner came to be promoted as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) and the next post to which the Petitioner was due for promotion on the basis of merit and his seniority was the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil). It is further the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 by its circular laid down the promotion policy and the procedure to be followed by the Promotion Committee. Ratings were required to be given to employees and where the ratings are not good, then such an employee was to be considered unfit for promotion and the Promotion Committee in such a case does not recommend his name for promotion. It is further the case of the Petitioner that on 18th April 1996 the Respondent Corporation issued another circular and laid down the conditions for filling up and submission of Confidential Reports of the Municipal Officers. In accordance with the practice and procedure followed by the Corporation, an employee was to fill up the Self Assessment Records and thereafter the same were considered by his immediate superior officer, who puts his remarks and forwards the same to the Head of the Department. It is further the contention of the Petitioner on 5th December 1997 that he was entitled for promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer in the year 1997. It is further the contention of the Petitioner on 5th December 1997 that he was entitled for promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer in the year 1997. However, the Petitioner was found to be unfit for promotion by the Promotion Committee, and hence he was not recommended for promotion as an Executive Engineer. It is further his contention that he made a representation on 22nd December 1997 to the then Additional Municipal Commissioner and set out the facts of his claim for promotion. It is further his contention that it was specifically pointed out that his Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officers were of the opinion that the Petitioner was certainly eligible for promotion as an Executive Engineer. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the concerned officers gave good remarks and his representation was forwarded to the higher officer, but inspite of this, the Petitioner was not considered for promotion. It is further his contention that he was given an ad hoc promotion with effect from 19th June 1998 for a period of one year. However, Respondent No.3 issued an order and demoted the Petitioner to the post of an Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 1st November 1999. It is further his case that the Petitioner thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the year 1999 being Writ Petition No.3049 of 1999 in this Court, but the same came to be dismissed. Subsequently a representation was forwarded by the Petitioner on 18th November 2000 to the then Municipal Commissioner setting out his grievances in respect of the wrong decision taken by the Promotion Committee not to consider his claim for promotion. It is further his case that the Petitioner's case was recommended for review so far as his claim for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was concerned and the case was directed to be put up before the Department Promotion Committee. Ultimately on 6th December 2001 the Petitioner was promoted to the post of an Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 15th November 2001 pursuant to the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation. But, the Petitioner's seniority was not protected. A representation was thereafter made on 16th January 2002 by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2 inter alia contending that his case was considered by the Department Promotion Committee as a repeater case instead of a review case. But, the Petitioner's seniority was not protected. A representation was thereafter made on 16th January 2002 by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2 inter alia contending that his case was considered by the Department Promotion Committee as a repeater case instead of a review case. The case of the Petitioner was placed before the Department Promotion Committee for restoring the seniority when it was not at all necessary to do so. Another representation was made on 28th January 2003 to the Additional Municipal Commissioner pointing out how injustice was caused to the Petitioner on account of the action by the Respondent Corporation. However, Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that his representation dated 28th January 2003 to give him retrospective effect in the seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) is treated as permanently closed. Another representation was made in the year 2003, but the Petitioner was informed by Respondent No.3 that under the directions of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner (ES) dated 5thJuly 2003 and by the Director (ES & P) dated 8th July 2003, the Petitioner's request to protect his seniority was once again rejected. An appeal was thereafter preferred on 14th November 2003 to Respondent No.2 who forwarded the Petitioner's representation to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (GAD) for his remarks. But the Petitioner did not receive any reply. Ultimately the Petitioner filed above Writ Petition seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The Respondents filed a reply to the Writ Petition disputing the facts and inter alia contending that the Petitioner was not entitled for promotion and justifying the action taken by the Department Promotion Committee and further that all the representations submitted by the Petitioner were duly examined by the concerned authorities and were rejected. The Petitioner also filed a rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents. Mr. Kolge, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of his above Writ Petition has strenuously argued that in the Promotion Committee meeting held on 5th June 1998, Respondent No.3 had put up the Petitioner's promotion case as per routine practice as a repeater considering his A.C.R. for 1993-94 to 1997-98 and the Promotion Committee rated the A.C.R for (a) 1992-93, (b) 1993-94, (c) 1994-95, (d) 1995-96, (e) 1996-97 and (f) 1997-98 and consequently decided to promote the Petitioner on trial basis for a period of one year. It is further his case that such promotion was not in accordance with the rules and the demotion as such is not at all justifiable. It is further his case that a writ petition which was filed challenging his demotion has been rejected on the ground that the Department Promotion Committee had rightly taken such decision which according to him would not affect the contentions raised by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition. It is further his case that Respondent No.2 ordered on 1st June 2001 to put up the case of the Petitioner in the next Promotion Committee meeting for consideration, as a review case. However, Respondent No.3 has put up the Petitioner's case for promotion to the Promotion Committee meeting held on 1st August 2001 as a repeater which is not in accordance with the directions given by Respondent No.2. Learned counsel further pointed out that though he was given a rating of A, this was not considered whilst giving promotion to the Petition in the year 2001 which ought to have been given with retrospective effect from the year 1997. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further pointed out that the representations which have been forwarded by the Petitioner have been erroneously rejected by the Respondents without examining the ratings which the Petitioner was entitled in view of the directions issued by Respondent No.2. Learned counsel as such pointed out that the Petitioner should be given a deemed promotion from the year 1997 as similarly placed employees were given promotion much earlier than that to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further pointed out that the Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, has disputed the contentions of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondents has pointed out that the direction issued to examine the case of the Petitioner sympathetically was duly considered by the Department Promotion Committee and consequently he was given the rating of A in the year 1996-97. Learned counsel further pointed out that in view of the said rating, the Petitioner was given an ad hoc promotion for a period of one year. However, in view of his unsatisfactory service, he was ordered to be demoted. Learned counsel further pointed out that in view of the said rating, the Petitioner was given an ad hoc promotion for a period of one year. However, in view of his unsatisfactory service, he was ordered to be demoted. Learned counsel for the Respondents, however, pointed out that the very contentions which are raised by the Petitioner in the present case in connection with the decisions of the Department Promotion Committee were also raised in the previous Writ Petition (being Writ Petition No. 3049 of 1999) which came to be rejected in the year 1999. Learned counsel further pointed out that it is not open to the Petitioner to reopen the issues which have been finally decided by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.3049 of 1999. Learned counsel for the Respondents has thereafter taken us to the noting of Respondent No.2 and pointed out that the only observations were to examine the case of the Petitioner in accordance with the service record and the rules applicable to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondents has pointed out that there is no case for interference in the impugned decisions taken by the Department Promotion Committee and consequently the Petition deserves to be rejected. 5. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and with their assistance have also gone through the record. 6. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, this Court while dismissing Writ Petition No.3049 of 1999 by order dated 18thSeptember 2000, filed by the Petitioner inter alia held that there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Petitioner who was an Assistant Engineer, was temporarily promoted as Executive Engineer for one year. The Promotion Committee thereafter reviewed the case of the Petitioner and did not find him fit for promotion and thereafter he was reverted to his original post. The Petitioner's representation was again considered and again the Committee recorded the same finding. In such circumstances, the Petition came to be rejected. 7. The main contention of the Petitioner as pointed out herein above and considering the relief sought in the Petition is to dispute the assessment by the Department Promotion Committee for the year 1996 and for the year 1997. All these decisions were found justified by this Court while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner. 7. The main contention of the Petitioner as pointed out herein above and considering the relief sought in the Petition is to dispute the assessment by the Department Promotion Committee for the year 1996 and for the year 1997. All these decisions were found justified by this Court while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner. In such circumstances, the question of reopening the validity of the said decisions by the Department Promotion Committee in the present Writ Petition is not at all justifiable, and the Petitioner is estopped from raising such contentions by filing the present Writ Petition. 8. Apart from that, we find that all these grievances were raised by the Petitioner whilst making a representation to the concerned authorities which were duly considered and the same came to be rejected in the year 2003. Even on perusal of the chart produced on record at Exhibit M, the ratings given to the Petitioner are 4B and 1A which is not sufficient to be eligible for the promotion as claimed by the Petitioner. It is now well settled that in service jurisprudence, there will ordinarily be no interference by the Court of law in the proceedings and recommendations of the Promotion Committee, unless such meetings are held illegally or in gross violation of the rules and there is mis-grading of the confidential report. No judicial review of the Promotion Committee proceedings which are ordinarily conducted in accordance with the government instructions and rules is warranted. In the present case, we find the subjective recommendations of the Promotion Committee on the basis of the examination of the service records of the Petitioner do not call for any interference by this Court. The Promotion Committee has assessed the merit of the Petitioner on the basis of the confidential reports for the preceding five years and examined the service records of the Petitioner as a whole and given him the ratings whilst making its recommendations. While examining the representation of the Petitioner the Promotion Committee for review on 21st January 2003 came to the conclusion that the Petitioner cannot be given promotion with retrospective effect. All the allegations advanced by the Petitioner in the present Petition were stated to have been duly examined and we find no infirmity committed by the Promotion Committee to come to the conclusion that at the relevant time, the Petitioner was not eligible for promotion. All the allegations advanced by the Petitioner in the present Petition were stated to have been duly examined and we find no infirmity committed by the Promotion Committee to come to the conclusion that at the relevant time, the Petitioner was not eligible for promotion. There is nothing illegal committed by the Promotion Committee while making its recommendations. All the grievances of the Petitioner were duly examined by the Committee and it was found that he was unfit for promotion with retrospective effect. In fact the Petitioner was promoted in view of the recommendations in the year 2001 as he became eligible and as such, we find no case is made out by the Petitioner for any interference in the decisions of the Promotion Committee to refuse seniority with retrospective effect. 9. In this context the Apex Court in the judgment in case of Union Public Service Commission v. L.P. Tiwari and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 317 has observed at paragraphs 12 and 13 thus : “12. It is now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with by the courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. Such view was reiterated as late as in 2005 in UPSC v. K. Rajaiah (2005) 10 SCC 15 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 738) wherein the aforesaid Regulations for the purpose of promotion to the IPS cadre were under consideration. Apart from the above, at no stage of the proceedings, either before the Tribunal or the High Court or even before this Court, has any allegation of mala fides been raised against the Selection Committee and the only grievance is that the Selection Committee erred while making assessment of the comparative merits of the respective candidates. While concluding his submissions, Mr. Rao had pointed out that the direction given by the High Court to the appellant to hold a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was also erroneous since the Regulations provided for selection to be made not by a Departmental Promotion Committee but by a Selection Committee constituted as per the Regulations. 13. While concluding his submissions, Mr. Rao had pointed out that the direction given by the High Court to the appellant to hold a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was also erroneous since the Regulations provided for selection to be made not by a Departmental Promotion Committee but by a Selection Committee constituted as per the Regulations. 13. Although, on behalf of the respondents it has been urged that there was no bar which precluded the Tribunal from looking into the original ACRs of the respective candidates, what we are required to consider is whether it was at all prudent on the part of the Tribunal to have adopted such a procedure which would amount to questioning the subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee in preparing the select list.” 10. Taking note of the above observations and for the reasons stated herein above, we find no substance in the above Writ Petition which stands accordingly rejected. Rule stands discharged.