Judgment S.S. SUBRAMANI, J.: 1. The facts are similar and the relief sought for in both the petitions is also similar and therefore these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. We need only narrate the facts in W.P.1634 of 1995. Petitioner therein was appointed as stenotypist temporarily and he was subsequently regularised. According to him. District Judge, Ramanathapuram prepared a seniority list consisting of persons working as Steno-typist and Junior Assistants and petitioner name finds a place as 19 and 23 respectively. First petitioner therein was promoted as Assistant and he joined duty on 27.8.1992 in the District Court, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur. Thereafter, he was transferred to Sub Court, Srivilliputhur where he was working as Assistant with effect from 31.12.1993. Second petitioner was promoted as Assistant in 1992 and she joined duty in Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Srivilliputhur. 3. The reason for filing the writ petition is that on 30.1.1995, both the petitioners were reverted back to the post of Steno-typist from the post of Assistant. According to them, the reversion is without jurisdiction and arbitrary. Petitioners have been working as assistant for more than two years, have been reverted without giving any notice and according to them, the same is not supported by any rule. The reversion is violative to principles of natural justice. It is also said that the Government bifurcated the category of typists from that of Steno-typists with effect from 1.8.1992, They were included in category 17 in Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service and Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service. But with effect from 1.8.1992, category 17 consists only of Steno-typist and 17A consists of Typists. It is said that long before 1.8.1992. petitioners’ names were included in the panel for promotion to Assistants and they were promoted thereafter. A subsequent change or alteration, of their service condition, should not affect their vested right or their promotional chances. The impugned order reverting them is based on wrong interpretation of various Government Order and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 4. In W.P.No.14458 of 1994, four petitioners have joined together seeking for similar relief and they also joined as Assistance after 1.8.1992. They were also reverted on the basis of the same Government Orders. 5. The impugned order reverting them is based on wrong interpretation of various Government Order and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 4. In W.P.No.14458 of 1994, four petitioners have joined together seeking for similar relief and they also joined as Assistance after 1.8.1992. They were also reverted on the basis of the same Government Orders. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent it is said that the District Judge had acted only on the basis of Government Orders and when service rules were amended the Government gave directions as to persons eligible for appointment as Assistants, persons employed as Stenotypists were directed to be excluded for consideration. Only candidates who were working as Assistants as on 1.8.1992 were given protection and all candidates who have joined thereafter were reverted back. Petitioners name, though included in the panel for promotion joined only after 1.8.1992 and they are not entitled to any protection. That apart, it is said that in view of the amendment to service rules, petitioners who are employed as Steno-typist Grade III are not entitled to be promoted as Assistants. Steno-typists Grade III will have to be considered for promotion as only for Steno-typists Grade II and from that to Grade I. It is further contended that rules have to be amended so as to give Typists and Steno-typists better promotional chances and the same was ordered only on the basis of representation to Government by petitioners’ association. There is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. There is no stigma against them. 6. In W.P.No.14458 of 1994. additional respondents have also filed an affidavit to vacate the interim order. Counsel submitted that the said affidavit may be treated as counter affidavit may be treated as counter affidavit in the main writ petition. 7. In that counter-affidavit it is said that Government of Tamil Nadu bifurcated Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists and treated them as separate categories. Steno-Typists have been categorised as Grade I, Grade II and Grade III and their scale of pay was also revised. Pay scale of Steno-typists Grade III is equal to that of Assistant and their promotional chances are from Grade III to Grade II and from Grade II to Grade I. It is said that the bifurcation was ordered only at the request of petitioners’ association. Pay scale of Steno-typists Grade III is equal to that of Assistant and their promotional chances are from Grade III to Grade II and from Grade II to Grade I. It is said that the bifurcation was ordered only at the request of petitioners’ association. Government also decided that Junior Assistants and Typists form a separate category and they alone are to be considered for promotion as Assistants and Superintendents whereas Steno-typists who are entitled to better scale of pay were considered for other promotions. It is from 1.8.1992 the rules were amended and Various Government Orders were issued. With effect from that date, no Steno-typists of Grade III are eligible to be appointed as Assistant though they are included in the panel. Only members who have already joined as Assistants and working as such as on 1.8.1992 were given protection. Since petitioners’ reversion is consequent to the policy decision of Government and based on Government Orders, there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. Merely because petitioners were included in the panel to be considered for promotion, they are not getting any vested right to get them promoted. In fact, after 1.8.1992, there is no scope for promotion from Steno-typist Grade III to that of Assistant since the scale of pay of both the categories are one and the same. It prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 8. After hearing counsel on both sides, we do not think that petitioners are entitled to any relief. 9. Admittedly all these petitioners were appointed as Assistants and they joined duty after 1.8.1992. The question is whether the order reverting them as Steno-typist Grade III is correct or not. 10. It could be seen that service Association of Steno-typist wanted better opportunities for promotion and Honourable Chief Minister announced on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on 23.4.1992 that the scale of pay of Steno-typists. Personal Clerk will be revised as Rs.1200-2040 after making necessary amendments to the Service Rules After announcing the same, Honourable Chief Minister also not the service organisation on 1.8.1992. Consequently, Typists and Stenotypists who were coming under one category was bifurcated. Steno-typists came under Category of 17 and Typists and other similarly situated employees in Treasury and Accounts Department were categorised under 17A. Consequently, Typists and Stenotypists who were coming under one category was bifurcated. Steno-typists came under Category of 17 and Typists and other similarly situated employees in Treasury and Accounts Department were categorised under 17A. By the same notification dated 1.8.1992 in G.O.Ms.No.256, the scale of pay of Steno-typists and Personal Clerks in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services. Secretariate Service and Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service were also revised from 975-1660 to 1200-2040. By virtue of this notification, all these petitioners came under the category 17 i.e., Steno-typists Grade III and their Scale of pay is Rs.1200-2040. 11. G.O.Ms.No.284, dated 19.8.1992 was also issued by Government wherein Steno-typists other than Secretariate were designated as Steno-typist Grade III and the existing post if Upper Division Steno-Typist wherever available were converted as Steno-typists Grade I and Grade II. The scale of pay of Steno-typist Grade I is Rs.1600-2660, Grade II Rs.1400-2600; and Grade III is Rs.1200 2040. The pay scale also came into effect on 1.8.1992. In view of the bifurcation, Government also decided that Steno-typists Grade III are not to be considered for appointment as Assistants in the ratio of 4:1. On 19.1.1993, Government also wrote to all heads of Departments that Steno-typists included in the panel for promotion as Assistant along with Junior Assistants and Typists as per ratio 4:1 before 1.8.1992 need not be deleted from the panel even though they have joined duty after 1.8.1992. The same was clarified by letter dated 30.6.1993. The Registrar of High Court was also informed about the clarification. As per the said letter dated 30.6.1993. it is directed to prepare seniority list of Steno-typists Grade III as on 1.8.1992 and based on the seniority list of Steno-typists senior most Steno-typist Grade III will have to be upgraded as Steno-typist Grade I and attached to the Head of the Department and similarly, next senior most to be upgraded as Grade II Steno-typist and attached to Additional Director and other second level officers like joint Director. It is also clarified that temporary Steno-typists Grade III as on 1.8.1992 or on subsequent date are not entitled to promotion as steno-typists Grade II Grade I. As latter posts were created to provide promotional opportunities to persons having long regular services and the temporary employees are not entitled to promotion. 12. As per G.O.Ms.No.417, dated 1.12.1993. It is also clarified that temporary Steno-typists Grade III as on 1.8.1992 or on subsequent date are not entitled to promotion as steno-typists Grade II Grade I. As latter posts were created to provide promotional opportunities to persons having long regular services and the temporary employees are not entitled to promotion. 12. As per G.O.Ms.No.417, dated 1.12.1993. revised procedures are also formulated by which it was declared that Steno-typists Grade III are not to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant along with Typists and Junior Assistants, and they were excluded for promotion as Assistants. 13. Finally, as per G.O.Ms.No.93, dated 8.4.1994, the Government clarified all the earlier Government orders paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Government Order read thus, “(7) The Government also direct that the appointment of” Typists/Steno-typist as Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service made, if any, from 1.6.1988 to 1.8.1992 from the common seniority list for that category will not be affected by the orders splitting the said category with retrospective effect from 1.6.1988 instead of from 1.8.1992.“ (8) The Government further direct that the seniority of persons already appointed to the posts or Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service from the common category of Typist/Steno-typist during the period from 1.6.1988 to 1.8.1992 shall not also be disturbed.” It was in view of this Government Order, the impugned order was passed by District Judge/Appointing Authority reversing petitioners. 14. Various Government Orders speak for themselves. It is clear therefrom that the Government took a policy decision with effect from 1.8.1992 that Steno-typists Grade III are not to be considered for promotion as Assistants. There are two reasons behind, for taking such decision. One, the promotional chances of typists and Junior Assistants were little more liberalised and the scale of pay of Steno-typists were also streamlined. Typists and Steno-typists who were included in one category was also bifurcated and as a policy decision, it was declared the steno-typists will have to be excluded from being considered for promotion to the post of Assistants. One, the promotional chances of typists and Junior Assistants were little more liberalised and the scale of pay of Steno-typists were also streamlined. Typists and Steno-typists who were included in one category was also bifurcated and as a policy decision, it was declared the steno-typists will have to be excluded from being considered for promotion to the post of Assistants. Scale of pay of Assistants and Steno-typists Grade III were also equalised and it was also declared that Steno-typists Grade III could be considered for promotion as Grade II and from Grade II to Grade I. Steno-typists who were already promoted as Assistants and who are working as such required protection and Government said that they should not be sent back. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if there is any Government order, that cannot be given retrospective effect so as to affect their promotional chances. Impugned order is therefore illegal. All these petitioner have joined as Assistants and they have been reverted back as Stenotypists Grade III without hearing them. 16. In this case there is no scope for any applicability of principles of natural justice since Government has taken policy decision. It is not the case that petitioner alone have been reverted. All Steno-typists Grade III were declared not eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistants and typists and Junior Assistants alone will be considered for promotion as assistants. G.O.Ms.No.93 is only clarification of earlier orders issued, which means it clarifies the orders already issued. In fact it is not G.O.Ms.No.93 to be considered but the earlier Government Orders which were clarified by G.O.Ms.No.93 are to be considered. If that principle is accepted, the earlier G.O. came into force on 1.8.1992 and on that date petitioners become ineligible for promotion. In spite of their ineligibility, petitioners were promoted as Assistants and that mistake was rectified when the clarificatory Government order was issued. Argument of learned counsel that service conditions shall not be affected by issuing of Government order has no application to the facts of this case. Before, 1.8.1992, petitioners names were included only in the panel of promotion. By including their name in the panel they are not getting any vested right. Again, chance of promotion is also not conditions of service. The impugned order is therefore correct and do not call for any interference. 17. Before, 1.8.1992, petitioners names were included only in the panel of promotion. By including their name in the panel they are not getting any vested right. Again, chance of promotion is also not conditions of service. The impugned order is therefore correct and do not call for any interference. 17. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed, however, without any order as to cost. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed.