Judgment : 1. The petitioners were appointed as a consolidated surveyor in the Updating Registry Scheme in the year 1983. The petitioners, along with others, repeatedly requested the Government to bring them under time scale of pay. Accordingly, the Government, considering their request, appointed the petitioners and others as Field Surveyor in the time scale of pay. Thereafter, they were promoted as Sub-Inspector of Survey on 12.08.1998 and 11.05.1998 respectively. Both the petitioners have put in 17 years of service. While so, by the impugned order dated 28.06.2000 of the third respondent, the petitioners were reverted as Field Surveyors in order to accommodate three employees, who have stated to have obtained interim stay from the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3849 of 2000. Therefore, challenging the order dated 28.06.2000 of the third respondent, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid Original Applications before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP Nos. 44010 and 44011 of 2006 respectively. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are 32 Sub-Inspector of Surveys in the Department, whose services have not been regularised and they were not included in the seniority list for promotion. The petitioners are two among the said 32 Sub-Inspector of Surveys. The petitioners are shown as No. 24 and 32 in the seniority list respectively. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Rules, if, for want of vacancy or the situation compels to terminate or de-promote or revert any employee, it has to be done only in the order of juniority. Thus, the Rule of last come first go has to be applied. Furthermore, the first respondent himself, in his proceedings dated 01.10.1991 and 29.08.1997 instructed the third respondent to give promotion only to qualified employees i.e., those who have passed all the departmental test and then to unqualified persons, however, the instructions were violated by giving promotion to the unqualified persons and reverting the qualified persons like the petitioners. 3. The respondents have not filed any counter. The learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order on the ground that in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, the impugned order of reversion has become necessary and therefore, the petitioners cannot now distinguish themselves between the persons qualified and unqualified. 3. The respondents have not filed any counter. The learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order on the ground that in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, the impugned order of reversion has become necessary and therefore, the petitioners cannot now distinguish themselves between the persons qualified and unqualified. Furthermore, according to the seniority, the petitioners are the junior most persons and therefore, they were rightly reverted to the lower post. 4. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the impugned order dated 28.06.2000 was passed by the third respondent pursuant to the interim stay granted by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3849 of 2000 filed by Anbalagan and two others. The said O.A. No. 3849 of 2000 was transferred and renumbered as WP No. 44008 of 2006 on the abolition of the Tribunal. This Honourable Court was pleased to allow the writ petition on 28.01.2010. In that order, the learned Judge, referring to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Bhagvan Shukla vs. Union of India) 1994 (6) SCC 154 had categorically held that the said decision is applicable to the facts of the case. The learned Judge further held that the third respondent has given promotion to unqualified persons namely Ambirajan, Janakiraman, Devapriyan, S.Francis Arputham, V. Narayanan and Ravikumar and the above said five persons have not passed the departmental tests. It was also held that as per Rule 39 (2) (i) (a) of the Tamil Nadu General Rules, the petitioners therein are fully qualified, hence, the respondents, instead of reverting the unqualified persons have reverted the persons who are fully qualified for promotion and set aside the impugned order. The said order is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the petitioners herein are also fully qualified persons. Even during the pendency of the Original Application before the Tribunal, the petitioners have obtained interim stay and they are continuing the posts without being reverted. Therefore, following the order passed by this Court in WP No. 44008 of 2006 mentioned supra, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.