Judgment 1. The petitioner challenges the order of reversion dated 31-12-2001 passed by the first respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was working as Tamil Pandit on the Panchayat Union Middle School, Vadugapalayam Village. Previously, he was working as a Head Master at the Panchayat Union Elementary School. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Tamil Pandit in accordance with his seniority and by including his name in the panel for the post of Tamil Pandit as on 01-01-2000. The promotion was ordered by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Coimbatore by fixing the pay of the petitioner in the post of Tamil Pandit. (ii) While so, the District Elementary Educational Officer reverted the petitioner by his proceedings dated 02-03-2001 from the post of Tamil Pandit to the post of Primary School Head Master, without any notice to the petitioner. The said order was also issued without any reference to the other proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 30-10-1995 as well as G.O.Ms.530, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 03-07-1995. Hence the petitioner challenged the said order of reversion before the Tribunal by filing O.ANo.1964 of 2001. (iii) The said order of reversion was stayed by the Tribunal and by an order dated 18-12-2001, the Tribunal was pleased to allowed the said original application by setting aside the order of reversion, however, by granting liberty to the first respondent to pass fresh orders, after giving notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner dated 24-12-2001 calling upon him as to why promotion given to him should not be cancelled as per the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal made in M.A.No.5140 of 2001 dated 18-12-2001. In the said notice, the petitioner was given five days' time. (iv) Notice was served on the petitioner only on 28-12-2001. Even before the expiry of the notice period, the first respondent passed the impugned order of reversion on 31-12-2001 reverting the petitioner to the post of Head Master, Panchayat Union Elementary School. The said order of reversion was served on the petitioner along with the order of retirement on 31-12-2001 at 7.00p.m. Thus, the present challenge is made the petitioner, against the order of reversion by filing O.A.No.2296 of 2002, which on abolition of the Tribunal stood transferred before this Court as W.P.No.5874 of 2007. 3. The said order of reversion was served on the petitioner along with the order of retirement on 31-12-2001 at 7.00p.m. Thus, the present challenge is made the petitioner, against the order of reversion by filing O.A.No.2296 of 2002, which on abolition of the Tribunal stood transferred before this Court as W.P.No.5874 of 2007. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent wherein it is stated that the reversion was passed only as per the G.O.Ms.No.373 dated 31-03-1969 and the subsequent proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education dated 30-10-1995. It is stated that when a vacancy of Tamil Pandit arises in the Middle School and the said Head Master is a Tamil Pandit then the post shall be filled up by a B.T. Assistant, since both the Head Master as well as Tamil Pandit cannot teach English language. Therefore, in order to overcome the above said problem, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Primary School Head Master. It is further stated that only after giving reasonable opportunity, the petitioner was reverted. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The order under challenge is the one passed by the first respondent on 31-12-2001 on the date of retirement of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was originally functioning as Head Master of Panchayat Union Elementary School and from that post, he was promoted to the post of Tamil Pandit in accordance with his seniority by including his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Tamil Pandit. It is also not disputed that the promotion was ordered by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Coimbatore and the petitioner was paid with the scale of pay applicable to the post of Tamil Pandit. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the promotion given to the petitioner was not due to any misrepresentation by the petitioner, but, on the other hand, it was given by the Department based on his seniority. However, the said promotion was sought to be reverted by the first respondent through his earlier proceedings dated 12-03-2001. 6. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The main contention of the petitioner in the above said proceedings in O.A.No.1964 of 2001 was that there was no notice issued before passing the order of reversion. However, the said promotion was sought to be reverted by the first respondent through his earlier proceedings dated 12-03-2001. 6. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The main contention of the petitioner in the above said proceedings in O.A.No.1964 of 2001 was that there was no notice issued before passing the order of reversion. The Honourable Tribunal after considering the said submission and by finding that there was a violation of principles of natural justice, set aside the order of reversion, however, by giving liberty to the authorities to pass fresh orders after giving notice to the petitioner. Therefore, in all fairness, the first respondent should have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, before passing the impugned order of reversion. No doubt, a show cause notice dated 24-12-2001 was issued by the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause within five days as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Tamil Pandit to the post of the Head Master. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notice was served on him only on 28-12-2001. The said fact is not disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. On the other hand, it is only stated by them that they have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, it has to be seen whether issuance of notice dated 24-12-2001 is in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims that the notice dated 24-12-2001 came to be served on him only on 28-12-2001. The said fact is not disputed by the respondents. Thus, from the date of the receipt of the said notice, five days' time is available to the petitioner to make his objection. It is needless to say that the said five days' time starts only from the date of receipt of the notice and not from the date of issuance of the notice. Therefore, even before the expiry of the five days' time given to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed on 31-12-2001. Thus, in my considered view, the first respondent has once again violated the principles of natural justice by not giving adequate and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to give his explanation or objection. 8. Therefore, even before the expiry of the five days' time given to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed on 31-12-2001. Thus, in my considered view, the first respondent has once again violated the principles of natural justice by not giving adequate and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to give his explanation or objection. 8. Earlier also, there was violation of the principles of natural justice, on which ground alone the Tribunal had set aside the order of reversion. However, the impugned order came to be passed once again by violating the principles of natural justice, that too, on the date of retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no purpose in remitting the matter back once again to the respondent for passing any fresh orders. Moreover, even on merits, as I have discussed above, when the promotion came to be given to the petitioner, not based on any misrepresentation or fraud played upon by him, the respondents cannot blame the petitioner and punish him. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed not only on the ground of violation of justice but also on merits. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend all the monetary benefits available to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.