Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined the Government services as a Bill Collector, on 6. 85, at Krishnarayapuram and he had worked as such at different stations. During the year 1994, while he was working at K.Abishekapuram the concerned Municipality was merged with the Corporation of the Tiruchirapalli City, which comes under the control and jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the Corporation. 3. It had been further stated that the petitioner had passed the Accounts Test and the other Departmental Tests in the year 1992. Thus, he had become eligible for further promotions. While so, on 28. 86, the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.773, according to which the posts of Bill Collectors and Junior Assistants were made inter-transferable. Accordingly, the petitioners seniority was fixed with effect from 28. 86, along with the other Bill Collectors and Junior Assistants. On 12. 96, the respondent had published a provisional seniority list in which the name of the petitioner was included at Serial No.14. The seniority list was finalised, on 27. 98 and on 9. 98, promotions were made. The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant and posted to Ponmalai Ward. The petitioner had joined the post as an Assistant, on 9. 98, and he has been working as such till the date of the filing of the above writ petition. However, the respondent had passed an order, on 2. 2003, reverting the petitioner as a Junior Assistant with effect from 9. 98, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner has been working as a Bill Collector in the erstwhile Town Panchayats in Tiruchirapalli District. When Tiruchirapalli Municipality was upgraded as a Corporation, on 5. 94, the petitioner was absorbed in the service of the Corporation based on the option exercised by him. It has been further stated that the passing of the departmental tests by themselves would not entitle the petitioner to be considered for future promotions. The petitioner is required to fulfill all the other essential qualifications prescribed in the Corporation Service Rules, 1996, for being eligible for the promotions. As per the Corporation Service Rules, 1996, which came into force from 10. The petitioner is required to fulfill all the other essential qualifications prescribed in the Corporation Service Rules, 1996, for being eligible for the promotions. As per the Corporation Service Rules, 1996, which came into force from 10. 96, the method and qualification for filing up the post of Assistant is as follows: Name of the Post Method and qualification prescribed in Service Rules, 1996 Assistant By direct Recruitment 1. Must Possess a degree of recognized University 2. Must have passed the foundational training for the Corporation Service before the date of completion probation. Assistant By Promotion By Promotion from the holders of the Post of Junior Assistant cum Typist. 5. It has been further stated that certain clarifications had been issued in respect of promotions for the existing Tax Collectors in G.O.Ms.No.140, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 297. Accordingly, the Tax Collectors, who have less than 20 years of service as on 25. 97, would have to work under the new service rules in other categories of posts. Since the petitioner had rendered a total service of less than 18 years in the post of Tax Collector he was not qualified for promotion to the cadre of Assistant. Further, the Government Order No.773, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 28. 86, by which the service of Bill Collectors and Junior Assistants was ordered to be inter-transferable, had been issued, exclusively, for the municipal employees and it does not apply to the servants of the Panchayat Department. As such the petitioner cannot claim any right based on the said Government Order. 6. It has been further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.1435 Public Department, dated 18. 64, the appointing authority shall issue necessary orders reverting the individual, if it was found that an incorrect order of promotion had been issued. In such circumstances, there would be no need for issuing of show cause notices before passing an order reverting the individual concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued the necessary notice, vide proceedings C1(M)/2898/2001, dated 2. 2003, clearly stating the specific reasons for his reversion and for the non-inclusion of his name in the panel for the post of Assistant. 7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court an order, dated 211. 2006, made in W.P.No.7207 of 2003 (N. Uma Kanthan Vs. 7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court an order, dated 211. 2006, made in W.P.No.7207 of 2003 (N. Uma Kanthan Vs. The Commissioner Trichirapalli Corporation, Tiruchirapalli) issued under similar facts and circumstances as in the present case. 8. By the said order this Court had held that the petitioner therein ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case before passing the impugned order. Even in the present case it is clear that no notice had been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to put forth his case before the impugned order had been passed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the order passed by this Court W.P.No.7207 of 2003 had become final. It is also seen that this Court had granted an interim stay of the impugned order, on 2. 2003, in W.P.M.P.No.4362 of 2003 and the same had been made absolute subsequently. Accordingly, the petitioner has been continuing in the promoted post till date. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that no notice had been issued to the petitioner before the respondent had passed the impugned order. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case before he was reverted from the promoted post of Assistant to that of a Junior Assistant. The impugned order has been issued by the respondent after nearly 5 years after promoting the petitioner as an Assistant. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to sustain the impugned order, dated 2. 2003. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.