Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that a notification, dated 16.7.2006, had been issued, by the Tamil Nadu Board of Continuing Education, Chennai, calling for applications for the post of Director, State Resource Centre for Adult Education, Tamil Nadu. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner, who had been functioning, as a Programme Coordinator, had submitted his application for the said post. Based on the interview conducted by the Selection Committee, as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India, and after obtaining the approval of the Government of India, the petitioner had been appointed, as the Director of State Resource Centre, by an order, dated 4.1.2007. Thereafter, an order, dated 6.7.2010, had been passed by the Principal Secretary to Government and Chairman, State Resource Centre, Chennai, treating the appointment of the petitioner, to the post of Director, State Resource Centre, as being contrary to the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Based on the said proceedings, the Chairman, State Resource Centre and Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, the third respondent herein, had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 22.7.2010, reverting the petitioner from the post of Director, State Resource Centre, as Programme Coordinator. It had also been stated, in the said impugned order, that the petitioner was being placed in full additional charge of the post of Director, State Resource Centre, with financial power, till the appointment of a new Director. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, even though the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Director, on his appointment to the said post, he had been reverted to the post of Programme Coordinator, by way of the impugned order, dated 4.1.2007, without the petitioner being given an opportunity of being heard before the said order had been passed. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as a Director, contrary to the recommendations of the Selection Committee and therefore, the impugned order, dated 22.7.2010, had been issued reverting the petitioner, as a Programme Coordinator. However, he had been placed in full additional charge of the post of Director, State Resource Centre, with financial power, till the appointment of a new Director. 6. However, he had been placed in full additional charge of the post of Director, State Resource Centre, with financial power, till the appointment of a new Director. 6. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents concerned, as they are found to have been passed without following the procedures established by law and the principles of natural justice. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to agitate the issue relating to the fixation of his salary, as he had been continuing to function as a Director, in full additional charge of the post of Director, State Resource Centre, till date. It would also be open to the respondents to proceed with the process of selection for the appointment to the post of Director, State Resource Centre, either as per the notification, dated 25.7.2010, or in accordance with a fresh notification to be issued by the respondents. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.