Judgment :- 1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the reversion from the post of Deputy Tahsildar, had approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of reversion. 2. The petitioners were inducted to the cadre of Assistant by way of promotion from the post of Junior Assistant. The person holding qualification of graduation are appointed as Assistant directly. The next channel of promotion to the post of Assistant is to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioners seniority was fixed in the year 1992 and 1995. 3. The State of Tamil Nadu in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, amended the Rule 5(g) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. By way of this amendment, it was provided that the post of Deputy Tahsildar shall be filled up by promotion of directly recruited assistants having qualification of graduation. Vide this amendment, promotee assistants though graduate were made ineligible to be considered for promotion, though both constituted the same cadre. 4. The amendment to Rule 5(g), was challenged before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application. Writ appeal challenging the decision of the learned Tribunal was also dismissed. The decision of this Court was challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. The Hon''ble Supreme Court granted the leave to appeal. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeal, in M. Rathinaswami and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [ (2009)5 S.C.C. 625 ] has laid down that to save constitutional validity of amended rule, it has to be read to mean that under Rule 5(g) a person holding qualification of graduation in the cadre is also to be considered for further promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, as there cannot be discrimination in the same cadre of employees similarly situated, merely on the ground of source of their induction in the cadre. 6. The admitted case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are graduate Assistants, and qualified to be promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. 7. At the time of admission of this writ petition, reversion of the petitioner was ordered to be stayed. 6. The admitted case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are graduate Assistants, and qualified to be promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. 7. At the time of admission of this writ petition, reversion of the petitioner was ordered to be stayed. All the petitioners have since retired from service, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is disposed by holding that the petitioners were fully eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, and could not be reverted only on the ground of amendment of Rule 5(g) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. No costs.