Judgment :- The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 112. 1971 and later he was promoted as an Assistant, on 14. 1976. The petitioner belongs to Sozhia Vellala Community, which was included in the list of Backward classes in the year, 1975. The petitioner is eligible to be considered under the Backward Class quota for the next higher post of Deputy Tahsildar. Since the petitioner was not considered for such promotion, he had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.7167 of 1985, which was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.1440 of 1989. As the said application was allowed, on 18. 1991, the petitioners name was included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1984, as per the communal rotation and he was also given the due seniority. 2. The petitioner has further stated that a panel for the year 1982 for the post of Deputy Tahsildar was drawn in which there were two vacancies under the Backward class quota. Since the vacancies were left unfilled and as they had lapsed, the Government issued orders in G.O.(D) No.297, Revenue Department, dated 8. 1992, to rectify the mistake. As per the orders of the Government, a list was drawn for the post of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1982. Since the petitioner belonged to a Backward community, he was eligible to be considered in the list of the year 1982 itself. 3. However, the benefits were confirmed on the petitioner only by an order, dated 310. 1991, inspite of the fact that a person would be considered to be belonging to the Backward Class from the date on which the said community is declared to be belonging to a Backward Class. Since the petitioner came to know the actual position only in the month of August 1992, he had made a representation to include his name in the list of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1982 under the category of Backward Class. However, the second respondent had passed an order in Ref.D3/85643/92, dated 12. 1995, rejecting the request made by the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12. However, the second respondent had passed an order in Ref.D3/85643/92, dated 12. 1995, rejecting the request made by the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12. 1995, by way of an original application, filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.2631 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.26789 of 2006. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the name of the petitioner had already been considered and his name has been included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars of Coimbatore District for the year 1984, as per the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 18. 1991, made in T.A.No.1440 of 1989 (W.P.No.7167 of 1985). Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the inclusion of his name in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1984, he had preferred an appeal, on 19. 1992, before the second respondent for the inclusion of his name in the earlier list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 in one of the two vacancies which had to be filled up by persons belonging to Backward class community and which were allowed to lapse at the time of the original drawal of the list. 6. It was also stated that a revised list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 was drawn and published on 19. 1992 by the third respondent, as ordered in G.O.(D) No.297, Revenue Department, dated 8. 1992, and both the vacancies had been filled up. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12. 1995, as he was not qualified for inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 and as he had not passed the Survey and Maintenance Test before the crucial date, i.e., 19. 1982 and that the particulars regarding the fact that the petitioner belongs to Backward community was entered in the Service Register, only on 8. 1984. Further, the last person included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 was senior to the petitioner in the Backward classes category and that there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner in the list for the year 1982. 1984. Further, the last person included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 was senior to the petitioner in the Backward classes category and that there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner in the list for the year 1982. Even though the petitioner has stated that the community of the petitioner has been reclassified as a Backward community, as per G.O.Ms.No.505, Social Welfare Department, dated 7. 1975, the relevant entries with regard to the community of the petitioner have been made in the Service Register, only on 8. 1984, after a lapse of 9 years. Hence, the claims made by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the averments made in the writ petition and the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is seen that the name of the petitioner had been included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars of Coimbatore District, for the year 1984, as per the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 18. 1991, made in T.A.No.1440 of 1989 (W.P.No.7167 of 1985). Further, even though the community of the petitioner is claimed to have been reclassified as a Backward community as per G.O.Ms.No.505, Social Welfare Department, dated 7. 1975, the particulars regarding the community of the petitioner has been entered in the Service Register only on 8. 1984, after a long delay. 8. It is also seen from the records available before this Court that the last person included in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 was senior to the petitioner in the Backward classes category. Further, the name of the petitioner had not been included in the list for the year 1982 for want of vacancy. In such circumstances, the claims made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be held to be valid and sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.