Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a BT Assistant in Mathematics in the year 1971. Thereafter, he had passed Master of Arts Degree in English in the year 1993. While so, a panel was drawn for promotion to the post of PG Assistant-English, in which all the persons who had possessed both basic, as well as Master Degree in English were considered. All the persons who had possessed only Master Degree in English had been considered. All the persons who were included in the panel were promoted on 21. 1994. However, the panel was cancelled without any basis and without any reason, resulting in the reversion of all the persons who were promoted, along with the petitioner, in the month of January, 1994. The reversion order had been passed in the month of May, 1994. 3. It has been further stated that in a batch of applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.Nos.646 to 648 of 1994, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to allow the panel of 1993 to be operative. The petitioner, being one of the persons who had been included in the panel for the year 1993, is protected by the orders passed by the Tribunal. In spite of the said order, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 27. 95, reverting the petitioner from the promoted post. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.5091 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.16665 of 2006. 4. No reply affidavit has been field on behalf of the respondent. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order, dated 26.02.2007, made in W.P.No.16968 of 2006 (O.A.No.1840 of 1996) passed by this Court, wherein, this Court had held, in similar circumstances, that such reversion is contrary to the Special Rules prescribing the method of recruitment. It has also been held that, pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal, on 11.01.1994, in O.A.Nos. 646 to 648 of 1994, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.NO.424, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 6. It has also been held that, pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal, on 11.01.1994, in O.A.Nos. 646 to 648 of 1994, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.NO.424, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 6. 1995, to implement the order passed by the Tribunal by directing the Director of School Education to undertake a review of the individual cases. It is seen from the said Government order, dated 6. 1995, that the statutory rules had not been amended and the provisions in the Special Rules, as they existed, were to be followed till they were duly reviewed and modified. Since the order of reversion does not disclose, either the amendment to the Special Rules or any factual finding as to whether there was any other candidate, who was qualified in the same subject, both in the under graduate and post graduate courses, it was held that the order of reversion passed by the respondent therein was bad in law. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is clear that the impugned order, dated 27. 95, passed by the respondent, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There is nothing shown by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the impugned order of reversion is in accordance with the Special Rules and the Government orders applicable to the case. Even according to the Special rules, the petitioner is not disqualified from being considered for promotion to the post of P.G. Assistant. It is also seen that the petitioner had continued in the promoted post in view of the interim order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the said order has been in force till date. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 27. 95, is set aside. However, as the petitioner had retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation, there cannot be a direction to continue him in the promoted post of P.G. Assistant. However, the petitioner is entitled for the retiral benefits that would have accrued to him in the promoted post. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.