Judgment :- This petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order of the second respondent, made in Rc.9585/95/B3, dated 112. 95, reverting the petitioner to the post of Record Clerk from the promoted post of Junior Assistant. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was initially selected for appointment to the post of Office Assistant, through the Employment Exchange, and he had joined service, on 70. He was promoted to the post of Record Clerk in the month of December 1984. By an order, dated 18. 95, issued by the second respondent, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner has also stated that from the year 1988, he has been rendering the duties of a Junior Assistant, being a record clerk in the District Treasury. Thus, he was rightly promoted to the post of Junior Assistant by an order, dated 18. 1995. All of a sudden he was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of a Record Clerk stating that the petitioner and some others were promoted to the post of Junior Assistant against the 20% of vacancies reserved for the lower categories of Record Clerk and Office Assistants. 3. It was also stated that the Office Assistants were not given training in clerical work for a period of one year to be eligible for appointment as Junior Assistant. The petitioner has further submitted that he has been serving as Record Clerk from the month of December 1984, and from the year 1988, he has been discharging the duties of a Junior Assistant being a Record Clerk. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the question of clerical training does not arise in his case as he has already been a Record Clerk for the past 15 years and he has been discharging the duties of a Junior Assistant for nearly 7 years. 4. It has also been stated that G.O.Ms.No.43, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B), Department, dated 12. 1994, does not state that the 20% vacancies are to be computed only from the year 1994. Both, in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.90, dated 13. 91, wherein 10% of the vacancies were reserved for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant from the category of Assistant and Record Clerks and in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 8. 1994, does not state that the 20% vacancies are to be computed only from the year 1994. Both, in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.90, dated 13. 91, wherein 10% of the vacancies were reserved for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant from the category of Assistant and Record Clerks and in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 8. 92, which had increased the vacancies from 10% to 20%, the year from which it should be counted is not prescribed. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the claims made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the promotion granted to the petitioner was found to be irregular, as it was in violation of the conditions provided in G.O.Ms.No.43, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B) Department, dated 12. 1994. According to Rule 4 of the Statutory Service Rules, issued in Annexure VIII to the Fundamental Rules, the promotions made otherwise than in accordance with the rules are illegal and they should be set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner, along with some others, were reverted to the post of Record Clerk in the orders issued in Office Proceedings 9585/95/B3, dated 112. 1995. 6. It has also been stated that at the time of granting promotion, the petitioner had been specifically informed that his promotion was purely temporary and that it will not confer any right on him for future promotions and that he could be reverted at any time without assigning any reason. The reversion is purely an administrative matter and it was done to set right an irregularity and it is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.43, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B) Department, dated 12. 1994, and the procedures established by law. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been reverted from the promoted post by the impugned order, dated 112. 1995, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. If the petitioner had been given an opportunity, he could have shown that he possessed the necessary qualifications for being promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the District Treasury, Trichirappali. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed that the petitioner may be permitted by this Court to submit a detailed representation to the respondents, which may be considered by them, on merits, and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed that the petitioner may be permitted by this Court to submit a detailed representation to the respondents, which may be considered by them, on merits, and in accordance with law, within a specified period. It was also prayed that the impugned order reverting the petitioner from the promoted post may be set aside without granting the petitioner any benefit relating to the promoted post, including the monetary benefits that may accrue in connection with such promotion. 9. It was further prayed that the respondents may pass appropriate orders as they may find fit in accordance with law and that the order passed by this Court setting aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 112. 1995, would not in any way prejudice or adversely affect the respondents, in any manner, in coming to their conclusions, with regard to the status of the petitioner, on considering his representation. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 112. 1995, passed by the second respondent reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Record Clerk, has been issued without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to explain his case. Even if it was found that the promotion granted to the petitioner was contrary to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.43, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B) Department, dated 12. 1994, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to show that the promotion granted to him was in order, both according to G.O.Ms.No.43, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.B) Department, dated 12. 1994, and the rules applicable to his case. 11. The respondents ought to have followed the basic principles of natural justice before deciding to revert the petitioner by passing the impugned proceedings. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 112. 1995, is set aside, making it clear that by setting aside the impugned order, no additional benefit would accrue to the petitioner more than what he is already eligible for in the reverted post. 12. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 112. 1995, is set aside, making it clear that by setting aside the impugned order, no additional benefit would accrue to the petitioner more than what he is already eligible for in the reverted post. 12. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent is set aside permitting the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the first respondent with regard to his eligibility and qualifications to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the District Treasury, Tiruchirappalli, within a period of four weeks from today, and on receipt of such representation the first respondent is directed to consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is allowed to the extent noted above. No costs.