Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed O.A.NO.3546 of 2001 challenging the order dated 23.05.2001, wherein and by which she was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Office Assistant by the second respondent- Commissioner of Labour, Labour Department, Chennai. 2. The Tribunal admitted the O.A., on 08.06.2001 and granted an interim stay of the order of reversion. Subsequently, the said order came to be continued until further orders by a further order dated 22.06.2001. 3. On notice from the Tribunal on behalf of the first respondent, a reply affidavit dated 20.05.2002 was filed. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.183/2007. 4. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition was as follows:- The petitioner's husband R.Vijayaragavaraj was working as an Office Assistant and on account of death in harness, the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant. At that time, in her application dated 25.09.1995, she had informed that she had passed ninth standard. Therefore, in commensurate with her educational qualification, she was given the posting of Office Assistant and she joined duty on 17.06.1996. Subsequently, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 22.01.1997 requesting to appoint her as Junior Assistant, as she had passed the S.S.L.C., examination conducted in March 1996. The results were however published only on 17.06.1996. 5. Inspite of the fact that she was qualified to the post of Junior Assistant, her application was considered in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1489 Labour and Employment Department dated 03.08.1989. In the said G.O., the Government has stated that in case of appointment on compassionate ground, if at the time of application only lower post was available, subsequently, if the candidate possess the qualification required for the higher posts, such candidates can be considered for higher posts like Junior Assistant, Typist. Based on the said G.O., the petitioner's qualification was considered and she was appointed as Junior Assistant on 04.11.1998. Thereafter, a proposal was sent to the Government for regularising the services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant as ratification of the State Government is necessary. When such a proposal was sent to the State Government, the State Government did not give ratification for the reason that the petitioner had been appointed as Office Assistant and joined duty on 17.06.1996. When such a proposal was sent to the State Government, the State Government did not give ratification for the reason that the petitioner had been appointed as Office Assistant and joined duty on 17.06.1996. Though 17.06.1996 has been mentioned in the S.S.L.C. Certifiction, there could not have been possibility of getting the certificate on that date ; she had applied for the post of Junior Assistant only on 22.01.1997. Therefore it was stated that she did not have the qualification on the date of entry. 6. It is in that view of the matter, the Government has refused to ratify her appointment and her appointment as Junior Assistant made under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules was cancelled. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the appointment on compassionate ground can be given to a person as a one time measure. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant as per her qualification viz., 9th Standard. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes two submissions. The first submission is that it is immaterial that the qualification was obtained later. But in so far as the examination results were out, the petitioner was deemed to have possessed such qualification and the fact that the certificate was given later that is only for the requirement of satisfaction of the authorities. There is no misrepresentation on her side. 9. In any event, on the strength of the interim order, she continued as Junior Assistant. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that her juniors, who have been appointed to the very same post viz., Office Assistant have been promoted as Junior Assistant which presupposes that there was existence of such posts and petitioner's case could have been considered in this regard. He also produced a copy of the appointment order given to one K.Annamalai, who was appointed as Office Assistant was promoted as Junior Assistant in Tirunelveli District. 10. The contention of the petitioner is well founded for two reasons. He also produced a copy of the appointment order given to one K.Annamalai, who was appointed as Office Assistant was promoted as Junior Assistant in Tirunelveli District. 10. The contention of the petitioner is well founded for two reasons. So long as G.O.Ms.No.1489, Labour and Employment Department dated 03.08.1989 provides for accommodation of such compassionate appointees to higher posts commensurate with the qualification and the petitioner having stake the claim on the basis of her qualification which existed even on the date of her entry, it cannot be that the respondents have committed in appointing her as Junior Assistant. In any event, subsequent to her appointment, her juniors were also appointed to higher post. 11. Hence this court is not inclined to uphold the order of reversion. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. The respondents are directed to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.