Judgment :- The writ petitioner has joined service in the Survey and Land Records Department as Junior Draftsman on 010. 1974. After completion of her probation on 010. 1976, she was promoted as Senior Draftsman on 10.03.1983 as per the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Tiruchirapalli, dated 28.01.1983. After serving in the said promoted post for one year and 7 months, she opted to temporarily relinquish her promotion for a period of 3 years due to her family circumstances. Accordingly, she was reverted as Junior Draftsman in which post she has joined duty on 010. 1984. After expiry of the said 3 years period, viz., the period of temporary relinquishment, the 4th respondent, by order dated 30.08.1988, has again promoted the petitioner as Senior Draftsman in which post she had joined on 05.09.1988. In spite of her services as Senior Draftsman for more than 10 years, her services have not been regularized. She made a representation for the regularisation of service and to grant her Selection Grade scale on completion of 10 years from the date of her joining as Senior Draftsman. She was also eligible to be included in the promotion panel of Head Draftsman for the year 2001-2002. However, the petitioner was reverted as Draftsman with retrospective effect from 05.09.1988 under the impugned order dated 211. 2004, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in the month of April, 2005, since the petitioner was undergoing a bypass surgery. 2. In the impugned order, in which apart from the petitioner, 2 other persons, viz., S. Rajalakshmi and K. Malarmani were also included in reverting them as Draftsman, it is stated that with effect from 01.05.1987, for a person to be promoted from the post of Junior Draftsman to Senior Draftsman, he must undergo the 1st promotion as Land Revenue Draftsman, which was created by the said date. According to the 4th respondent in the impugned order, since the new post of Land Revenue Draftsman was created from 01.05.1987, the promotion of the petitioner from Junior Draftsman to Senior Draftsman on 30.08.1988 effected by the 4th respondent is against the said regulation, which came into force from 01.07.1987 and therefore, the petitioner and the other 2 persons were reverted as Draftsman with retrospective effect from 05.09.1988. 3. 3. It is also seen that one of the said 3 persons, who were affected by the impugned order dated 211. 2004, viz., K. Malarmani, has approached this Court by filing a writ petition, W.P.No.39135 of 2004 challenging the same impugned order. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.A. Hameed -vs-State of A.P. and another reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 261), wherein it was held that the reversion of the appellant therein from the post of District Inspect of Local Funds (Accounts) after a period of 11 years was held to be bad in law, the writ petition filed by the said K. Malarmani came to be allowed by the order dated 15.06.2007. Justice A.Kulasekaran, in the said judgment, while dealing with the facts of the said case, which is also similar to the facts in issue relating to the petitioner herein, held as follows:- "The Honble Supreme Court in the above said case has held that the reversion order after a lapse of 11 years is untenable in law. In this case, certain strange facts are involved. The petitioner was found eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Draftsman and promoted. She held that post for 1 year 5 months, subsequently relinquished it for a limited period of 3 years which was accepted by the respondent and demoted. He was again promoted as Senior Draftsman on 110. 1988 which was regularized only from 25.04.1989 not from 28.01.1993, later, she was also given selection grade from 111. 1999. If an employee was found eligible and promoted, later, on his request for relinquishment for limited period it was allowed and again promoted, selection grade was also granted, that cannot be disturbed after 18 years. The impugned order is liable to be quashed also on the ground that it has been passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioners superannuation falls on 30.06.2007." For the above said reasons, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for." 4. Mrs. Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the above said order passed in the writ petition has become final and in fact, even on the final order passed in the writ petition, the said K. Malarmani has been promoted as Senior Draftsman and was also conferred Selection Grade. 5. Mrs. Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the above said order passed in the writ petition has become final and in fact, even on the final order passed in the writ petition, the said K. Malarmani has been promoted as Senior Draftsman and was also conferred Selection Grade. 5. In view of the above said admitted fact and due to the reason that the facts of the present case is similar to that of the case, which was filed earlier, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 211. 2004 is to be set aside. In view of the same, the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 211. 2004 is set aside insofar as it relates to the writ petitioner and the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Senior Draftsman and also to confer her the Selection grade as per law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected W.P.M.P. is closed. No costs.