JUDGMENT D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner joined as Assistant Professor in the third respondent University on 02.07.1997. He was posted as Assistant Professor (Farms) in Sheep Breeding Research Station, Sandynallah, Nilgiris established by the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Breeding Sciences University, Chennai. After three years, he was transferred to Coconut Research Station (Main), Aliyarnagar, Pollachi. On completion of four years of service, his pay was fixed in the scale of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale). In 2007, he was transferred to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Pechiparai, Kanyakumari. 3. According to the petitioner, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme of the respondent University as per G.O. Ms. No. 270, Agriculture (AU) Department, dated 08.10.2001. 4. As per clause 2.3 of G.O. Ms. No. 270, an Associate Professor in the Senior Scale will be promoted and appointed to the post of Associate Professor, if he/she has – (a) Completed 5 years of service in the Senior Scale. (b) Obtained a Ph. D degree or has equivalent published work. (c) Made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced by the quality of publications, contribution to education innovation, design of new courses and curricular and extension activities. (d) After placement in the Senior Scale, participated in 2 refresher courses/summer institutes of approved duration or engaged in other appropriate continuous education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the University Grants Commission/Indian Council of Agricultural Research. (e) Possessed consistently good performance appraisal reports. 5. Clause 2.4 of G.O. Ms. No. 270 provides that promotion to the post of Associate Professor will be through a process of selection by a Selection Committee to be set up by the appointing authorities. 6. According to the petitioner, as per the Career Advancement Scheme, he became entitled to become an Associate Professor on 02.07.2006, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 270, referred to above. It is his case that he should have been promoted as Associate Professor from 02.07.2006 with all benefits. However, it is a fact that the Selection Committee, during 2007, did not admit the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. No. 270, referred to above. It is his case that he should have been promoted as Associate Professor from 02.07.2006 with all benefits. However, it is a fact that the Selection Committee, during 2007, did not admit the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. Hence, he was not given promotion to the post of Associate Professor based on the findings of the Selection Committee. Had the Selection Committee cleared his name, he could have been promoted as Associate Professor with effect from 02.07.2006. But it did not happen. 7. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 802 of 2008 seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme as per G.O. Ms. No. 270 with retrospective effect from the date when he became eligible. That is, his prayer was to promote him as Associate Professor with effect from 02.07.2006 though the Selection Committee did not approve his promotion in the first sitting held during 2007. 8. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 05.06.2012 in W.P. No. 802 of 2008. The learned Single Judge has held in para 5 of the judgment that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the non-selection made by the Selection Committee during April 2007 and hence, the mandamus, that was sought could not be granted. In this regard, para 5 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "The petitioner's request for retrospective promotion under the career advancement scheme cannot be granted, as the petitioner has not chosen to challenge his non-selection made during April 2007. Hence, no case is made out. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed." 9. Without challenging the aforesaid judgment or filing a review petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming identical relief. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has proposed to file writ appeal against the judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed in W.P. No. 802 of 2008. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter dated 13.02.2003 of the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government addressed to the third respondent University. He relies on point no. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter dated 13.02.2003 of the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government addressed to the third respondent University. He relies on point no. 4 of the clarification sought for by the third respondent University and the same is extracted hereunder:- Point No. Clarification sought for by Registrar Clarification of the Government in the light of clarification issued by ICAR 4 Whether the elevation to the higher post may be given from the date of attainment of service eligibility on or after 27.7.1998 as per the clarification issued by ICAR in the reference letter No. F1 (15)09-Per.IV, dated 28.3.2001 (or) from the date of joining in the elevated post. As per para 3.2 of the Government order the promotion under Career Advancement Scheme will be done as per procedure already followed in the University. All the benefits for the individual will be given from the date of attainment of such eligibility of the individual, though selection is done at a late date. However, since the ICAR has now revised its formulation on the Career Advancement with effect from 27.7.1998 onwards only, the promotion may be given with retrospective effect from 27.7.1998 as per ICAR norms. 12. According to the petitioner, in view of the clarification given by the Government, though this Court rejected his earlier writ petition vide judgment dated 05.06.2012 in W.P. No. 802 of 2008, this Court could issue necessary direction as sought for in the present writ petition. 13. I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all, I am of the view that the aforesaid clarification does not really answer the question that if a person is not cleared in the first sitting of the Selection Committee and was subsequently cleared in the next year, whether he could get the career advancement from the date of initial eligibility or from the date of the clearance by the second Selection Committee. Further, I am bound by the judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed in W.P. No. 802 of 2008 and the Government letter cannot prevail over the same. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has instructed him to file writ appeal against the aforesaid judgment of this Court. 14. Further, I am bound by the judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed in W.P. No. 802 of 2008 and the Government letter cannot prevail over the same. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has instructed him to file writ appeal against the aforesaid judgment of this Court. 14. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief as sought for in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.