Judgment The petitioner joined as Physical Education Teacher on 6.9.1984. Before he joined as Physical Education Teacher, he passed P.U.C. during the year 1974. The petitioner also passed B.A. (Economics) during April 1984. He passed B. Ed. (Social Science) during January 1996. He had obtained second degree B.A. (History) (one year course) during December 2010. The same is not recognised for the purpose of employment/promotion. 2. The petitioner was in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. A panel for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant was prepared in the year 2001. The name of the petitioner was included at Sl.No.204. Based on the panel, the petitioner was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant on 14.8.2001. While so, after nine years, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why he should not be reverted on the ground that he was in possession of B.A. (Economics), and he did not possess B.A. (History). 3. The petitioner gave an explanation, dated 9.5.2011 stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.134, Education Department, dated 15.6.2004, degree with B. Ed. in any discipline is the prescribed qualification for the post of B.T. Assistant or Headmaster of Middle School and therefore, there is no infirmity in his promotion. 4. While so, another show cause notice, dated 27.7.2012 was issued on the same line as the one issued in the year 2010. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order, dated 27.7.2012. 5. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay on 23.8.2012. No counter affidavit is filed. 6. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The learned Government Advocate has made submission based on instructions. 7. The impugned order states that when the petitioner was promoted, he should have brought to the notice of the concerned authorities that he did not possess degree in History. The relevant passage in the impugned order to the aforesaid degree is extracted hereunder: "6 Tamil" 8. I am not able to understand as to how one can blame the Teacher that he failed to bring to the notice of the authorities that he did not possess the qualification B.A. History. 9. Furthermore, the petitioner was included in the panel, dated 6.8.2001 by the Chief Educational Officer, Perambalur for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant. I am not able to understand as to how one can blame the Teacher that he failed to bring to the notice of the authorities that he did not possess the qualification B.A. History. 9. Furthermore, the petitioner was included in the panel, dated 6.8.2001 by the Chief Educational Officer, Perambalur for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant. His serial number in the panel is 204. In the panel, there is nothing to indicate about the subject in the degree. It is stated that the persons included in the panel are eligible for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant. The petitioner is shown at Sl.No.204 and his designation is stated as Physical Education Teacher. 10. Besides, the petitioner was given promotion based on the panel, by the Joint Director of School Education, by order, dated 14.8.2011. In the promotion order also, nowhere it is stated that he was appointed on the ground that he was in possession of B.A. (History) degree. It is stated that he was appointed as B.T. Assistant and posted in the Government High School, Keelaveli in Perambalur district. 11. Therefore, if any mistake was committed by the Chief Educational Officer by including the petitioner in the panel and later by the Joint Director by promoting him, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. 12. As per G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 15.6.2004, a person having qualification of any degree is eligible for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant or Headmaster in Middle School. The same cannot be relied on by the petitioner since he was serving in High School. But the petitioner was promoted in the year 2001 and he has been serving as B.T. Assistant for 11 years. It is also stated that he has to retire from service on 31.10.2011. 13. In this factual background, I am of the view that the respondents are not justified in reverting the petitioner from the post of B.T. Assistant to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. On the peculiar facts of the case that the petitioner has served as B.T. Assistant for more than 11 years, the respondents cannot revert him just two weeks before his retirement. 14. In fact, no reversion order is passed so far. For the reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioner was issued show cause notice for the second time. On the peculiar facts of the case that the petitioner has served as B.T. Assistant for more than 11 years, the respondents cannot revert him just two weeks before his retirement. 14. In fact, no reversion order is passed so far. For the reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioner was issued show cause notice for the second time. This Court has granted stay may be on the ground that he has been serving as B.T. Assistant for more than 10 years. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to quash the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has served in the post of B.T. Assistant for more than 10 years. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.