Judgment :- It is stated that the petitioners were appointed as Headmasters of Middle School. Pursuant to the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.2035, Social Welfare Department, dated 8. 1986, the appointments of the petitioners were made in the year, 1988. Even though the petitioners had put in several years of service as Middle School Headmasters, their names have been included in the seniority list of Secondary Grade Assistants, fit to be promoted as Headmasters, well below the names of Secondary Grade Assistants who were yet to be promoted. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed an original application in O.A.No.2091 of 1996, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been renumbered as W.P.No.27674 of 2006. 2. Even though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that in view of the averments made in paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition may be dismissed as no further orders are required to be passed. 3. Paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit reads as follows: "8. Regarding the averments made in para 6(k) of the application, it is submitted that there is no bar to revert those who are appointed to a post of contravention of the rules even though they have been appointed on regular basis by mistaken facts. The contention of the applicants that if they are reverted to lower post, recovery of pay will be ordered is incorrect since they have been paid in the post of Headmaster (Middle School) at the rates admissible to that post and as they have acted in the post. Hence, there will be no question of recovery. There is no need to give any opportunity to the applicants to explain their position, since they have been occupying the post of Headmaster (Middle School), due to wrong interpretation of rules. It is therefore just and reasonable that the applicants who are promoted to the post of Headmaster (Middle School) in the absence of statutory rules should be reverted and replaced by the eligible persons based on the existing rules." 4. It is therefore just and reasonable that the applicants who are promoted to the post of Headmaster (Middle School) in the absence of statutory rules should be reverted and replaced by the eligible persons based on the existing rules." 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the averments made in paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition stands dismissed as no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. No costs.