Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.A1/4991, dated 11.10.1999, quash the order as null and void and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Village Administrative Officer in the year 1979, and he was waiting for appointment after completing all the qualifying tests to the said post. Meanwhile, the Government took a policy decision abolishing the Village Administrative Officer post on 14.11.1980, the petitioner was not appointed in view of the said policy. The erstwhile Village Officers challenged the validity of the same before the Supreme Court. During the course of the hearing, on a suggestion by the Supreme Court, a memo was filed on behalf of the State Government stating that all the Ex.Village Officers who possess the minimum general educational qualification as on 20.2.1982 should be given appointment through the Screening Committee in the newly created post of Village Administrative Officer and accordingly, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.1195, Revenue, dated 6.7.1982, constituting District Level Screening Committee and State Level Screening Committees for selecting eligible Ex.Village Officers, who lost service on 14.11.1980, to be appointed as Village Administrative Officers. 3. According to the petitioner, he was not in employment as on 14.11.1980 because of the policy decision of the Government to abolish the post of Village Administrative Officer, though he had passed all the required tests for appointment to the post of Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Department and the same having not been considered, he filed O.A.No.10856 of 1998 before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner as per the Rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 4. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Department and the same having not been considered, he filed O.A.No.10856 of 1998 before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner as per the Rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 4. Thepetitioner enclosed a copy of the order of the Tribunal and submitted his representation to the respondent on 11.10.1999 and thereafter, the first respondent, by a notice dated 10.3.1999, directed the petitioner to produce his Employment Registration Card on 15.3.1999 and the petitioner produced the same and consequently, by order in Roc.A1/4991/1999 dated 15.3.1999, the petitioner was given appointment in the post of Village Administrative Officer at Cheran-mahadevi Division under Rule 10(a)(1) of the General Rules. The petitioner joined duty as per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi on 15.4.1999 as Arikesava Nallore Village Administrative Officer, Ambasamuthiram Taluk on 16.4.1999. 5. Further case of the petitioner is, he was issued with a show cause notice in October, 1999 stating as to why his service should not be terminated as he was not in service on or before 14.11.1980. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 8.10.1999 stating that he was qualified as on 14.11.1980 and therefore, his appointment made by the first respondent under Rule 10(a)(1) is proper. However, the petitioner was removed from service by the second respondents proceedings No.A1.4991/99 dated 11.10.1999. 6. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his representation to the first respondent on 21.10.1999 and also to the Minister for Revenue on 7.12.1999, but no orders have been passed for restoring him in service. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1247 of 2001 and obtained an order of interim stay of the order of removal from service on 15.2.2000. 7. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was reinstated by an order issued by the first respondent/District Revenue Officer in his proceedings A1411 of 1999 dated 18.8.2001 and posted at Cheranmahadevi, Arikesava Nallore Village, Tirunelveli District. The respondents filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7042 of 2005 and obtained an interim order from this Court and subsequently the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 15.3.2005. Thus, the petitioner was again relieved from his service on 16.3.2005. 8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was not in service from 14.11.1980. 9. The respondents filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7042 of 2005 and obtained an interim order from this Court and subsequently the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 15.3.2005. Thus, the petitioner was again relieved from his service on 16.3.2005. 8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was not in service from 14.11.1980. 9. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not reported before the first respondent that he was employed on 14.11.1980 and he was qualified for being appointed as Village Administrative Officer and due to the policy decision taken by the Government, he could get appointment and when the policy decision was subsequently, recalled, he submitted a representation and prayed for appointment. Subsequently, the first respondent appointed the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the order of removal from service by cancelling the appointment given earlier is unsustainable. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner worked as Village Administrative Officer for over four years and there was no complaint during that period against the petitioner. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Government advocate. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed an additional affidavit before this Court on 2.3.2006 wherein he has stated that in Nanguneri Taluk itself, there are 18 vacancies available in the post of Village Administrative Officer and if a direction is issued to accommodate the petitioner, he will be in a position to serve as Village Administrative Officer. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner will not claim any backwages for the period during which he was not in service and the petitioner will be satisfied if his service benefits, other than backwages, are given. 13. The petitioner has not misrepresented before the respondents and the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1999, as stated supra. Hence, the cancellation of the appointment order by the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petitioner served as Village Administrative Officer for over four years and he is now aged 50 years and he is not eligible to get appointment anywhere at this age. 14. Hence, the cancellation of the appointment order by the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petitioner served as Village Administrative Officer for over four years and he is now aged 50 years and he is not eligible to get appointment anywhere at this age. 14. Taking note of the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met by setting aside the order of removal of petitioner from service and reinstating him in service as Village Administrative Officer in any one of the vacancies in Nanguneri Taluk within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to get all service benefits other than the backwages. 15. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.