Judgment : ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The writ petition is directed against the order of dismissal of O.A.No. 415 of 1992 dated 13.6.2002 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Original Application No. 415 of 1992 was filed challenging the order passed by the Revisional authority dated 14.1.1992, whereby the revisional authority cancelled the order passed by the appellate authority dated 5.7.1990. The appeal was filed against the order of appointment of the writ petitioner dated 16.8.1989. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Grama Kavalar of Vaippar-I village, Vilathikulam Taluk in Chidambaranar district by the Tahsildar in his proceedings dated 16.8.1989. Three non-selected candidates including the fourth respondent preferred appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appellate authority/Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the appeals and confirmed the appointment of the writ petitioner, against which revision was filed by the non-selected candidates. The revisional authority/District Revenue Officer exercising the powers under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Rules, 1980 has conducted the enquiry with regard to the certificate furnished by the petitioner, as the fourth respondent has stated that the educational Certificate produced by the petitioner is false, based on the letter obtained from the Headmaster that the certificate produced by the writ petitioner was not issued by the School concerned. The revisional authority, after conducting a fresh test to all the candidates who have appeared, cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner and appointed the fourth respondent as Grama Kavalar. Challenging the order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal initially granted stay of the operation of the order dated 14.1.1992 passed by the revisional authority/District Revenue Officer, on 28.1.1992. Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by an order dated 13.6.1992, against which the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner obtained an order of stay from this Court on 1.7.1992, which was subsequently made absolute by an order dated 12.9.2002, on the vacate stay petition filed by the fourth respondent. Now the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised the ground that when the appointing authority, while conducting the interview among eight candidates who appeared for the interview, satisfied with regard to performance of the petitioner in writing and reading and appointed the petitioner. The appellate authority confirmed his appointment. Now the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised the ground that when the appointing authority, while conducting the interview among eight candidates who appeared for the interview, satisfied with regard to performance of the petitioner in writing and reading and appointed the petitioner. The appellate authority confirmed his appointment. But, the revisional authority cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and appointed the fourth respondent. As per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, the appointing authority is the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge within his jurisdiction. Therefore, the revisional authority has no power to appoint the fourth respondent in the said post in lieu of the petitioner, by setting aside the order of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend his case or cross examine the Headmaster, who said the certificate issued by the petitioner is not issued by the school and therefore the petitioner has no other way of contradicting the allegations made against him by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application. It is further submitted that by virtue of the order of appointment, he is continuing in the said post for the past 17 years, from the date of appointment in the year 1989, except for a short spell of time after the order passed by the Revisional authority. Therefore, the Tribunal should have considered the balance of convenience and ordered to continue the petitioner in the above said post. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent vehemently contended that based on the letter of the Headmaster of the School, in which the petitioner studied, the revisional authority satisfied with the production of false certificate by the petitioner. The revisional authority has got the power of revision, as per Rule 10 of the said Rules. 5. As per Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Rules, 1980, when a revision is made against the order passed by the appellate authority under Rule 9, the revisional authority may call for and examine the records relating to any order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer for reasons to be recorded in writing, annul, modify, reverse or remit for reconsideration such order on any of the grounds specified in sub-rule 2. Sub rule 2 contemplates the grounds on which the order shall be annulled, modified, reversed or remitted for reconsideration. According to sub-rule 2, the order shall be annulled, modified, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, if the order of the appellate authority is incorrect, or is vitiated by illegality or material irregularity or impropriety, or obvious error resulting in miscarriage of justice or want of jurisdiction or the authority concerned had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the rules or had exceeded such jurisdiction. The power can be exercised under Rule 10 by the revisional authority after giving reasonable opportunity of making representation by the person against whom orders have been passed by the revisional authority. 6. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, when the revisional authority satisfied and found that the petitioner has got appointment by producing a false certificate, interfered with the order of appointment of the petitioner issued by the Tahsildar by setting aside the petitioners appointment, and appointed the fourth respondent as Grama Kavalar, and therefore the action of the fourth respondent is in accordance with Rule 10 of the above said Rules and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal need no interference 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is revealed that the appointing authority conducted the test and on verification of the records satisfied himself that the petitioner is possessed of the required qualification of reading and writing and appointed the petitioner. His appointment was confirmed by the appellate authority/the Revenue Divisional Officer. But, however, the revisional authority, after collecting the materials from the Headmaster, who is alleged to have issued the certificate, set aside the order of appointment of the writ petitioner but appointed the fourth respondent. 8. His appointment was confirmed by the appellate authority/the Revenue Divisional Officer. But, however, the revisional authority, after collecting the materials from the Headmaster, who is alleged to have issued the certificate, set aside the order of appointment of the writ petitioner but appointed the fourth respondent. 8. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, we have gone through Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Rules, 1980, which contemplates that when a revision is made against the order passed by the appellate authority under Rule 9, the Collector or the officer of whom power is delegated, suo motu of his own motion or on the application of the person aggrieved call for and examine the records relating to any order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appellate authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, annul, modify, reverse or remit for reconsideration such order on any of the grounds specified in sub-rule 2. According to sub-rule 2, if the order of the appellate authority is incorrect, or is vitiated by illegality of material irregularity or impropriety, or obvious error resulting in miscarriage of justice or want of jurisdiction or the authority concerned had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the rules or had exceeded such jurisdiction, the order of the appellate authority can be interfered with. Therefore, under the above two circumstances, the revisional authority suo motu of his own motion or on the application of the person aggrieved against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appellate authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing, annul, modify, reverse or remit for reconsideration. Whereas in the present case, the grounds mentioned in sub-rule (2) are not exist. When a revision is filed by the fourth respondent, if the revisional authority came to the conclusion that the order passed by the appellate authority contravenes or not in consonance with the grounds mentioned in sub-rule 2, he should have passed the order based on the records available. On the other hand, the revisional authority collected the material i. e. the letter from the Headmaster of the School in which the petitioner studied, as if the certificate produced by the petitioner is not issued by the school authority. On the other hand, the revisional authority collected the material i. e. the letter from the Headmaster of the School in which the petitioner studied, as if the certificate produced by the petitioner is not issued by the school authority. The revisional authority even went into the extent by conducting the interview with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner herein and other revisional petitioners, which action is not contemplated under Rule 10 of the above said Rules. The legislature of the Rules has mentioned under what circumstances the revisional authority has to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in the statute. Therefore, the revisional authority has no power or jurisdiction to travel beyond the scope of the revision. But the revisional authority has exceeded his jurisdictional power contemplated under Rule 10 by calling for the letter from the Headmaster of the School concerned from which the petitioner has obtained the certificate and also conducted eligibility test of reading and writing, as if he is an appointing authority, which is not permissible under Rule 10. 9. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was appointed by the Tahsildar, who is the appointing authority. On verification, his appointment order was confirmed by the appellate authority. Only in the revision, his appointment was cancelled. Thereafter, he filed the Original Applications and obtained the order of Stay. It is also pertinent to note that from the date of appointment till this date, except for a shot span of time, the petitioner is on duty. Therefore the petitioner has put in sufficient experience for the past 17 years. To meet the ends of justice, his appointment should be confirmed. We are satisfied that the order passed by the revisional authority is contrary to Rule and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal is also to be set aside. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.