Judgment : 1. Mr. P. Chinnadurai, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for respondents. By consent, final order is being passed in the Writ Petition, at the stage of admission itself. 2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents to promote the petitioner as Instructor (Mechanical) with effect from 23.06.1985, Lecturer, with effect from 23.06.1988, upgraded post as Senior Lecturer, with effect from 23.06.1998, upgraded post as Head of Department, with effect from 23.06.2008, and consequently, to grant seniority and monetary benefits from the date based on G.O.Ms.No. 472, dated 10.09.1998, G.O.Ms.No. 89, dated 31.03.2009, and proceedings dated 24.12.2012, and 06.12.2013, by which, similarly placed persons were given retrospective promotion. 3. The petitioner was a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. He was selected and appointed as Draughtsman Grade III in the Mechanical Engineering Department, Government Polytechnic College, Nagercoil, on 23.06.1983, through employment exchange. Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service Rules were amended by G.O.Ms.No. 1364 Education Department, dated 16.08.1988, with retrospective effect from 23.12.1981. As per the amended Rules, a Draughtsman possessing Diploma qualification in respective branch of Engineering relating to the post concerned with a service for a period not less than 2 years was eligible to be promoted as the Instructor. Therefore, the petitioner is qualified for promotion to the post of Instructor (Mechanical) even on 23.06.1985, but, he was promoted as Inspector only on 27.12.1988. The petitioner completed B.E. on 30.10.1993. As per DOTE proceedings, dated 10.01.2001, he was promoted as Lecturer with effect from 30.10.1993, and his service as Lecturer was regularized with effect from 30.10.1993 and he was upgraded as Senior Lecturer on 30.10.2003. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors were granted promotion, whereas, his case was not considered. The petitioner states that similarly placed persons like the petitioner herein filed W.P.No. 4894 of 1993, W.P.No. 7656 of 1993 and W.P.No. 9111 of 1997, claiming promotion with retrospective effect. Those Writ Petitions were allowed by this Court and Writ Appeals filed by the respondents in those Writ Petitions were dismissed. Similarly, W.P.No. 4660 of 2005, was filed by G. Mathivanan and others, who were also similarly placed like the petitioner, seeking promotion with retrospective effect from the date of their qualification and vacancy. The said W.P.No. 4660 of 2005 was allowed, and Writ Appeal filed against the same was dismissed. Similarly, W.P.No. 4660 of 2005, was filed by G. Mathivanan and others, who were also similarly placed like the petitioner, seeking promotion with retrospective effect from the date of their qualification and vacancy. The said W.P.No. 4660 of 2005 was allowed, and Writ Appeal filed against the same was dismissed. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in various Writ Petitions, as stated above, and recently, as regards the similar issue, W.P.No. 6425 and W.P.No. 41722 of 2006 were filed and those Writ Petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, granting promotion to those petitioners retrospectively. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the present Writ Petition may also be allowed. 6. Mr. P. Chinnadurai, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for respondents and he submitted that the application is belated and though persons similarly placed like the petitioner herein were given retrospective promotion, as the petitioner has come to Court belatedly, he is not entitled to the relief, prayed for. 7. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate. 8. It is seen from the judgment, dated 01.08.2007, passed in W.A.Nos. 207 of 2002 (batch), that similar issue was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and promotions were given to appellants therein retrospectively. The petitioner herein is also similarly placed like appellants therein, hence, he is entitled to the same relief. 9. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed, as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.