Judgment :- 1. After the petitioners appointment as a Surveyor on 13.02.1975 in the Department of Survey and Land Records, he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Survey on 07.12.1982. Whileso, the 4th respondent joined as Filed Surveyor in the Urban Land Tax Department only in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Survey and Land Records. The 4th respondent made a request for transfer from Urban Land Tax Department to the Department of Survey and Land Records. On accepting his request, he was transferred to the department of Survey and Land Records in the year 1986. Thereafter, by G.O.Ms.No.198, Commercial Tax and Religious Endowment Department, dated 26.02.1986, the service of the 4th respondent was regularised with retrospective effect from 12.09.1973 from the date of his initial appointment. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that when the petitioner was appointed as Field Surveyor in the Department of Survey and Land Records on 13.02.75, the 4th respondent, whose services were regularised, by G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 26.02.1986, cannot be regularised with effect from 12.09.73 and be promoted as Sub Inspector of Survey on 01.13.88. His further contention is that when the 4th respondent joined in the department of Urban Land Tax Department, which is different from the petitioners Department of Survey and Land Records, the services of the 4th respondent should be regularised only from the date of his joining in the petitioners department as his seniority has to be fixed only at the bottom of the District Seniority list of Field Surveyor. It was further submitted that there was no necessity to absorb the 4th respondent in the petitioners department, and only in order to include the 4th respondent, the impugned order has been passed without giving notice to the affected persons. On that basis, the impugned order dated 26.02.86, passed in G.O.Ms.No.198 was challenged by filing Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submits that the petitioner also worked in the Survey and Land Records Department as Field Officer in the year 1975 and thereafter, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records in the year 1982 in Kancheepuram District. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submits that the petitioner also worked in the Survey and Land Records Department as Field Officer in the year 1975 and thereafter, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records in the year 1982 in Kancheepuram District. Thereafter, he was also transferred, on his request, with a condition to take last rank in the seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records in Chennai District. Whileso, the 4th respondent was also appointed as Field Surveyor in the Urban Land Tax Department in the year 1973. When he was transferred from Urban Land Tax Department, Chennai to Survey and Land Records Department in Chennai, on the report of the Director of Urban Land Tax, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.198, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 26.02.1986, after getting concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for absorbing the 4th respondent in the Survey and Land Records Department. Accordingly, he was absorbed in the Survey and Land Records Department at Chennai. Further, the Government also ordered for regularising the service of the 4th respondent with effect from 12.09.73 i.e., the date of his first appointment in the Urban Land Tax Department. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not correct for the petitioner to contend that the order has been passed with malafide motive in favour of the 4th respondent, but it has been rightly passed in accordance with law. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Field Surveyor on 13.02.1975 in the Department of Survey and Land Records in Kancheepuram District. Subsequently, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records in Kancheepuram District on 07.12.1982. In the year 1984, the petitioner has submitted his request for transfer from Kancheepuram District to Chennai District. Accepting his request for transfer, he was transferred to Chennai with a condition that he will take last rank in the seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records in Chennai. Therefore, his seniority has to be reckoned only with effect from the date of his joining in Chennai as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records. 6. Accepting his request for transfer, he was transferred to Chennai with a condition that he will take last rank in the seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records in Chennai. Therefore, his seniority has to be reckoned only with effect from the date of his joining in Chennai as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records. 6. On the other hand, the 4th respondent also joined duty as Filed Surveyor in Urban Land Tax Department, Kancheepuram on 12.09.1973 and his services were regularised with effect from 12.09.1973. Subsequently, on his request from Kancheepuram District to Chennai District, he was transferred to Chennai District, i.e., 2 years after the transfer of the petitioner. Further, when the 4th respondent joined in the petitioners department in the year 1986, the petitioner was already serving as a Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records at Chennai Unit, as his promotion as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records took place in the year 1982 itself, whereas the 4th respondent was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records only in the year 1988. To put it clearly, at the time the 4th respondent entered the petitioners department in the year 1986 as Field Surveyor, the petitioner was already working as Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records. Be that as it may, when the petitioner was transferred with a condition that he will take the last rank in the seniority of Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records, the same analogy automatically applies to the case of the 4th respondent as well, since he also requested for transfer from Kancheepuram District to Chennai District, but from the Department of Urban Land Tax. Therefore, when both the petitioner as well as 4th respondent having been transferred from one district to another district, there cannot be a different yardstick for fixing their seniority. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent should not be regularised from 12.09.73, but it is the case of the petitioner that while he was transferred from Kancheepuram District to Chennai District, he was placed in the last rank in the seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records in the year 1984, the same yardstick should be followed in the case of the 4th respondent by placing him in the last rank in the seniority of Survey and Land Records in the year 1986. Therefore, the placement of 4th respondent in the seniority list of Survey and Land Records, above the petitioner is legally not sustainable and the respondents should have followed the same method, particularly when whoever is transferred from one district to another district, he should be placed in the last rank in the seniority of the particular post. 7. In that view of the matter, placing the 4th respondent above petitioner is unsustainable and the same is set aside. Further, the impugned order reverting the petitioner from the post of Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records to Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records passed by the respondents without giving notice of hearing, having not been controverted by the respondents in their counter, the impugned order is also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order of reversion is also set aside. Consequently, this Court directs the respondents 1, 2 and 5 to fix the name of the petitioner above the name of the 4th respondent in the seniority list of Survey and Land Records in the year 1984. However, in view of the retirement of the 4th respondent from service, the respondents are directed to place the petitioner in the seniority list for Sub-Inspector of Survey and Land Records at S.No.16, which is above S.No.16(a) as on 01.01.93 and the consequent service benefits, which have legally accrued to the petitioner as on 01.01.93 shall be given. Accordingly, the present writ petition allowed refixing the seniority of the petitioner before the 4th respondent. No Costs.