Judgment Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents. W.P.No.28298 of 2006: 2. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Consolidated Surveyor on 183. He was appointed as a Field Surveyor in the month of November, 1984. The next avenue of promotion is `Firka Surveyor. Before the promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor, one has to pass the field Surveyor test, which the petitioner had passed in the month of November, 1984. Since the petitioner had passed the field surveyor test, he was promoted as a Firka Surveyor, with effect from 292. However, by an order of the first respondent, dated 6. 96, the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of Firka Surveyor, retaining those who had passed the field surveyor test subsequent to the petitioner and those who were promoted as Firka Surveyor after the promotion had been granted to the petitioner. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of reversion was passed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3337 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.28298 of 2006. W.P.No.28299 of 2006: 3. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Consolidated Surveyor in the year 1983. He was appointed as a Field Surveyor in the year 1987. The next avenue of promotion is `Firka Surveyor. Before the promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor, one has to pass the field Surveyor test, which the petitioner had passed in the year 1989. Since the petitioner had passed the field surveyor test, he was promoted as a Firka Surveyor, with effect from 92. However, by an order of the first respondent, dated 6. 96, the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of Firka Surveyor, retaining those who had passed the field surveyor test subsequent to the petitioner and those who were promoted as Firka Surveyor after the promotion had been granted to the petitioner. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of reversion was passed by the first respondent. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order of reversion was passed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3338 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28299 of 2006. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, it has been stated that the revision of seniority had been done only based on the order passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.199 of 1990. In the original application filed before the Tribunal questioning the procedure of following the rule of reservation in making the appointments to the time scale of pay in the posts of Surveyor and Draftsman, the Tribunal by its order, dated 9. 91, had issued directions for payment of consolidated pay to Surveyor–Draftsman in the time scale of pay posts, strictly by following seniority alone. As the review application, filed for the reconsideration of the said order, had been dismissed, a special leave petition had been filed before the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No.CC 25347/94. The Special Leave Petition had also been dismissed. Therefore, instructions had been issued to all the Assistant Directors of Survey and Land Records, by the second respondent, in Na.Ka.Na2/45858/95, dated 29. 95, for revising and regulating all the temporary appointments made to the time scale of pay posts from consolidated pay employees by strictly following seniority alone. Accordingly, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land records, Madurai, had issued a revised seniority list in his Rc.S8/14699/95, dated 13. 96, giving 15 days time for receiving representations and thereafter, had issued the final seniority list in Rc.S8/14699/95, dated 296. Based on the revised seniority, the petitioner and some others who were not found to be sufficiently senior in position had been reverted. The contention of the petitioners that the order of reversion had been issued without notice is incorrect for the reason that only after issuing a tentative seniority list, with 15 days time for raising objections, the impugned order had been issued. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had placed before this Court an order, dated 11. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had placed before this Court an order, dated 11. 2006, made in W.P.Nos.20584 to 20587 of 2006, arising under similar circumstances, wherein, this Court had held as follows: "6. At the outset it is seen that the petitioners were brought in to time scale of pay in the year 1987 and were also promoted as Firka Surveyors in the y ear 1991, following the provisions contained in the Special Rules for Tamilnadu survey and Land Records Subordinate Services. Rule 3(a) of the said Rules prescribed that appointment to the post of Firka Surveyor shall be made by promotion from the category of Field Surveyor. Rule 5(a) of the said Rules prescribes the qualifications for promotion to the post of Firka Surveyor. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were promoted, after acquiring the necessary qualifications prescribed under the aforesaid Rule 5(a) and their promotions were in conformity with Rule 3(a) of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore their promotions were regular promotions. But the petitioners cannot have any grievance with regard to the fixation of seniority in the category of Consolidated Pay Surveyor-cum-Draftsmen, on account of the said issue having attained finality by virtue of the Orders of the Supreme Court. At the same time the reversion order passed against the petitioners, cannot be taken be taken to be a necessary corollary for such revision of seniority. In other words, the respondents were not entitled to put the clock back upon the petitioners in so far as the promotions gained by them prior to the Order of the Tribunal is concerned. It is pertinent to point out here that the promotion of the petitioners was in June and February 1991 while the Order of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was dated September 1991 and the order of the Supreme Court was dated 110. 1994. The Tribunal as well as the Supreme Court never directed the respondents to upset all that has happened during the period from 1990-94. Therefore, the orders of reversion passed by the respondents, thinking that it was a necessary corollary to the revision of seniority cannot be sustained. 8. It is also brought to my notice that the petitioners had the benefit of Interim Stay from 1996, in respect of the Orders of Reversion. Therefore, the orders of reversion passed by the respondents, thinking that it was a necessary corollary to the revision of seniority cannot be sustained. 8. It is also brought to my notice that the petitioners had the benefit of Interim Stay from 1996, in respect of the Orders of Reversion. Therefore persons who gained seniority over and above the petitioners in the lower category of post, would have also now been promoted, during this period of 10 years. Moreover the revision of seniority in the lower category, after a long efflux of time, cannot result in the reversion of the petitioners from a higher post. 9. For all the above said reasons, the impugned orders in so far as they seek to revert the petitioners from the post of Firka Surveyors is concerned, is set aside to that limited extent without affecting the refixation of seniority of the petitioners. The writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. No costs." 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the claims made on behalf of the petitioners. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents to show that the reversion of the petitioners was imminent in view of the order, dated 9. 91, passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.199 of 1990. Even if the seniority of the petitioners and others had to be revised as per the orders of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 9. 91, no reason has been shown to revert the petitioners, who had the necessary qualifications prescribed for the promoted post held by them. Even thought it has been stated in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that some other persons, whose names had been pointed out by the petitioners, were sufficiently senior in position to be continued in the higher post, no record has been produced before this Court to substantiate such a claim. Further, it has not been shown that the reversion of the petitioners was unavoidable, as claimed by the respondents. Even though 15 days time had been granted for making representations against the revised seniority list, the respondents have not been in a position to show that the petitioners were given sufficient notice with regard to the impending order of reversion. 7. Even though 15 days time had been granted for making representations against the revised seniority list, the respondents have not been in a position to show that the petitioners were given sufficient notice with regard to the impending order of reversion. 7. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents and in view of the order, dated 11. 2006, passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20584 to 20587 of 2006, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 6. 96, made in proceedings No.Na.C.Ne.A8/8195/96/2, is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.