Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, after passing SSLC, enrolled himself with the employment exchange. The name of the petitioner was sponsored for appointment as Watchman-cum-Sweeper. 2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as night Watchman-cum-Sweeper on temporary basis on temporary basis in the office of the Assitant Commissioner, Virudhunagar. 3. The petitioner was thereafter given appointment as Office Assistant by transfer and posted in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer-II, Virudhunagar on 29.01.1993. 4. The petitioner was transferred to the Check Post, Sattur Road, where he worked for 1½ year as Office Assistant and thereafter, transferred to the post of the Department Representative, Virdhunagar, where he worked for another 1½ year. 5. In the year 1999, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Appellant Assistant Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar as Office Assistant. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) vide order Roc.A1/2051/98, dated 27.02.2002 reverted the petitioner from the post of Office Assistant to the post of night Watchman-cum-Sweeper. This order was passed on the basis of telephonic instruction received from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner(CT), Chennai. 6. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the order of reversion has been passed without following principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued to petitioner before the impugned order and on the ground that the impugned order has not been passed by the competent authority by applying his independent mind, but has been passed on the basis of instruction issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner(CT), Chennai, who is not the appointing or punishing authority of petitioner. 7. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner was recruited by transfer, therefore, his case was sent to the Government for regularization. The Government held the appointment of petitioner to be irregular, and directions were issued to revert the petitioner from the post of Office Assistant to the post of Watchman-cum-Sweeper immediately. 8. It was in pursuance to the orders of the State Government, that instructions were issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner(CT), Chennai to revert the petitioner to the post of Watchman-cum-Sweeper. 9. It is also the stand of respondents, that the appointment of petitioner was contrary to the instructions issued by the Government to fill up the post of Office Assistant from surplus list of Office Assistant on seniority basis. 10. 9. It is also the stand of respondents, that the appointment of petitioner was contrary to the instructions issued by the Government to fill up the post of Office Assistant from surplus list of Office Assistant on seniority basis. 10. However, in the counter, it is not disputed, that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing impugned order of reversion. It is also not disputed that before passing an order of recovery, no notice was issued to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Office Assistant and further not disputed that petitioner has put in 9 years of service as Office Assistant in pursuance to his appointment by transfer. The only ground taken is that appointment by transfer was contrary to Government instructions, though under rules, there is provision for appointment by transfer. The appointment made in accordance with rules cannot be set aside by relying on some instructions of an employee, who has put in more than 9 years of service on a promoted post. 11. It is also admitted that reversion of petitioner was not by the competent authority, but on instructions of the State Government. The State Government before issuing instructions to revert the petitioner, also did not follow the principles of natural justice. 12. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, that promotion of petitioner was only temporary, where it was stipulated that he could be reverted without assigning any reasons. This ground is totally misconceived, as the petitioner was appointed by transfer by the competent authority, and he had put in 9 years of regular service, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to revert the petitioner without following principles of natural justice, merely because of stipulation on appointment letter. 13. The impugned order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without application of mind independently by competent authority, merely on the instructions issued by the higher authority, can be safely said to be arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 15. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.