Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. This writ petition arises out of O.A.No.1971 of 1998 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The said OA was filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 17. 1997 passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to fix the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer Grade I in the appropriate place. 3. The petitioner based her claim for fixing seniority in the cadre of Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer – Grade I in terms of Rule 10 of the Special Absorption Rules. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised additional grounds by filing additional affidavit dated 30.08.2008. In the additional grounds, it was stated that the petitioner was in Serial No.92 in the seniority list of Junior Assistant/Rural Welfare Officer – Grade II and one S.Swarnappan was placed at Serial No.90. The said S. Swarnappan was appointed through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Junior Assistant in 1983 batch and the petitioner was also appointed in the same batch. He was allotted to Highways and Rural Works Department and he was ousted for want of vacancies and given a posting in the Rural Development Department and the said Swarnappan was given due seniority. But only in the case of the petitioner her claim was rejected on the ground that she had passed the test only in the year 1989. 5. In reply to the additional grounds, the respondent District Collector had sent a letter dated 25.08.2009 stating that the said S. Swarnappan had passed the department test during the year 1986 itself, but the petitioner had passed only during 1989 and she is presently working as a Deputy Block Development Officer (Audit) at Kariyapatti Panchayat Union. 6. Mr.S.Mani learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the stand taken by the respondent was erroneous. The petitioner had passed the revenue test (I & II) in the examination held during November 1986 by the TNPSC and her registration No. was 15866. The said result was published in the TNPSC Bulletin No.14 dated 01.07.1987. The Tahsildar, Tirunelveli had also entered the same in the service register. Therefore, once a person passes a test, the question of again passing the test merely because the said person working in some other office cannot be correct. The said result was published in the TNPSC Bulletin No.14 dated 01.07.1987. The Tahsildar, Tirunelveli had also entered the same in the service register. Therefore, once a person passes a test, the question of again passing the test merely because the said person working in some other office cannot be correct. In this context, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this court the proceedings issued by the respondent District Collector dated 08.01.1998 in Na.Ka.No.P3/3825/97 wherein the said Collector had granted the benefit of higher seniority in respect of one S. Ravi an Assistant on the basis that he had passed the test even earlier and therefore, appropriate seniority was fixed. Hence, in the case of petitioner a different yardstick cannot be adopted. 7. The learned counsel also stated that the Government has fixed guidelines for seniority in terms of G.O.Ms.No.648 P & AR Department dated 25.06.1985. By the said order, if a candidate is selected by the TNPSC and allotted to various revenue units and if later found want of vacancy and they were changed to other departments, their seniority will have to be calculated on the basis of their initial appointment in a revenue unit. This was on the ground since they were transferred again involuntarily, they need not lose their seniority. Subsequently, when the Commissioner of Labour brought the attention of the Government regarding the persons who were ousted from service and the TNPSC further release them from the revenue unit by surrender and they were further allotted by the TNPSC to appropriate department whether the guidelines in G.O.Ms.NO.648 dated 25.06.1985 was applicable. The State Government once again issued G.O.Ms.No.282 P & AR Department dated 02.04.1987 that even in such cases, the guidelines of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.648 dated 25.06.1985 will have to be adopted. 8. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent cannot be countenanced by this Court and the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondent is directed to redo the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Assistant in accordance with this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the result to the petitioner without fail. No costs.