JUDGMENT 1. This batch of writ petitions, numbering 34, has been filed seeking a similar relief to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Vellore, the respondent herein in his proceedings Na.Ka.K3/9554/2010-46 etc., all dated 18.11.2011, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondent to permit the petitioners to continue as B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster with all consequential benefits. 2. Mr.T.Chellapandian, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions submitted that when all the petitioners, who were working as Secondary Grade Teachers in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, possessed all the requisite qualification, eligible for promotion as B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster, the respondent also prepared a panel on 1.3.2010 in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher fit for promotion as B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster and the names of the petitioners were also shown in the respective place in the panel at Serial No.61 etc., after the panel was prepared, the respondent had conducted counselling for promotion and transfer on 17.07.2010. In the counselling that took place on 17.07.2010, the seniors to the petitioners and several other juniors had also participated in the counselling for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster. However, during the counselling, some of the seniors and Elementary School Headmasters have relinquished their promotion fearing that they would be transferred to far of places. In view of that, although the petitioners were shown in the bottom of the seniority list at Serial No.61 etc., they were promoted as B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster on 17.07.2010 and posted in different schools in the district. Continuing his arguments, the learned counsel stated that the then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, who conducted the counselling, had also recorded about the relinquishment of promotion by the seniors in the register maintained during the counselling. That shows that the counselling took place on 17.07.2010 and the promotion of the petitioners to the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster is absolutely in order. Moreover, it is also a well settled legal position in service jurisprudence that the panel should be prepared among the qualified persons to fill up the substantive vacancies available in the department and the promotion should be given effect to. Moreover, it is also a well settled legal position in service jurisprudence that the panel should be prepared among the qualified persons to fill up the substantive vacancies available in the department and the promotion should be given effect to. In view of the panel, when the counselling also took place on 17.07.2010 and the then District Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer had also made a specific record in his proceedings that during the counselling many of the seniors and other persons relinquished their promotion, it goes without saying that the respondent cannot find fault with the promotion given to the petitioners. Moreover, after 13 months from the date of promotion, all of a sudden, the respondent passed the orders of reversion dated 9.9.2011 reverting them back to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers from the promotional post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster in the absence of any objection by any of the seniors. In that view of the matter, the petitioners, having been affected by the earlier reversion orders, approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.21138 of 2011 etc., on the ground that the reversion orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court, by order dated 20.9.2011, finding that the reversion orders were passed without giving any reasonable opportunity whatsoever to the petitioners, setting aside the orders of reversion on the sole ground of flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, directed the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Vellore to reconsider the matter afresh by issuing show cause notices to the petitioners and, by affording reasonable opportunity to them to put forward their case, to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. Once again, in the light of the order passed by this Court, notices were issued calling for explanation and the petitioners also gave their explanation dated 10.11.2011 etc., refuting the reasons assigned in the show cause notices. Specifically one of the explanations offered by the petitioners was that they were promoted as per G.O.Ms.No.48, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 8.4.2008 strictly in accordance with seniority and subject roster. Secondly, the show cause notice was also issued not based on any complaint from any aggrieved Headmaster/Teacher and the show cause notice issued based on the complaint given by an association should not be accepted. Secondly, the show cause notice was also issued not based on any complaint from any aggrieved Headmaster/Teacher and the show cause notice issued based on the complaint given by an association should not be accepted. But the respondent, sticking to the show cause notice, ignoring the explanation offered, once again reverted the petitioners. In view of that, the petitioners came to this Court and by virtue of the interim orders, all the petitioners are continuing in the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster. 3. Assailing the further approach adopted by the respondent, it was argued before this Court that admittedly the panel for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster having been drawn on 1.3.2010 by adopting the procedure contemplated under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, taking into account the total number of permanent vacancies, temporary vacancies and anticipated vacancies due to death, retirement and promotion, the panel has to be given effect to through a transparent method of counselling in the presence of the seniors and junior Elementary School Headmasters. In view of that, when a panel was prepared on 1.3.2010 in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher fit for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster, all the petitioners were listed in the panel, subsequently the respondent also had conducted the counselling for promotion and transfer on 17.07.2010, during the course of counselling, it is the admitted case of both the petitioner and the respondent that many of the seniors who participated in the counselling expressed their unwillingness and relinquished their promotion fearing their transfer to far off places and that has also been recorded by the then District Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer who conducted the counselling. When the seniors who were shown above the petitioners in the panel have relinquished their promotion, naturally the case of the petitioners, who are shown in the bottom of the panel, are to be considered and that is how the promotion has been effected to all the petitioners to the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster. After a lapse of 1 = years from the date of giving promotion, it is not open to the respondent to once again pass the reversion orders dated 18.11.2011, which is legally impermissible. 4. After a lapse of 1 = years from the date of giving promotion, it is not open to the respondent to once again pass the reversion orders dated 18.11.2011, which is legally impermissible. 4. Adding further, it was stated that when the panel was drawn on 1.3.2010 and the same was given effect to on 17.07.2010, the panel would lapse only on 28.2.2011. Therefore, the respondent cannot undo or cancel the panel already effected that too after a lapse of 1 = years. Again assailing the impugned orders of reversion, it was stated that the respondent is prohibited from taking twin grounds of overlooking seniority and excess vacancies. When the panel was prepared taking into account all the vacancies viz., permanent, temporary and anticipated and the petitioners were also promoted only in the substantive vacancies available at the time of counselling, it is not open to the respondent to say that all the petitioners were promoted in excess vacancies, that too overlooking the seniority. That also shows that the impugned orders of reversion are based on the whims and fancies of the respondent. Concluding his arguments, he has stated that it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners at any point of time have misrepresented or misled at the time of promotion about their seniority. Therefore, when the promotions were effected to the petitioners to the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster, the respondent is estopped from reverting them without any valid and sustainable reasons. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the impugned orders. 5. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that it is not in dispute that a panel was prepared on 1.3.2010 in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher to effect promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster. But after the panel was prepared, as per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, in the counselling held on 17.07.2010, the then District Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, who conducted the counselling, instead of filling up five vacancies viz., three in the post of B.T.Assistant (Tamil), one in History and another one in Science, wrongly had given promotions to several other persons over and above the vacancies available for promotion. He has also stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.100, Education Department dated 27.6.2003, whenever permanent vacancies of Secondary Grade Assistants in 6th, 7th and 8th standards arise, they should be considered as B.T. Post and should be filled by way of promotion and the vacancies of B.T.Assistant in 9th and 10th standards should be filled up with 50% by promotion and 50% by the Teachers Recruitment Board. When the B.T.Assistant posts should be filled from the qualified Primary School Headmaster in each subject, equally whenever qualified Primary School Headmasters are not available in a particular subject, then such vacancy should be filled up by promotion of qualified Secondary Grade Assistant. While filling up the vacancies of B.T.Assistant in 6th, 7th and 8th standards, the ratio of 15:15:20:20:30 (Tamil, History, Maths, Science and English) should be followed. However, if eligible teachers are not available in a particular subject, then it should not be filled by the other subject teachers, since more persons are available in that particular subject and it should be diverted to Teachers Recruitment Board. But this aspect has been completely overlooked by the then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer when the panel for B.T.Assistant from the 85 Secondary Grade Teachers working in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare schools was drawn on 1.3.2010 for the year 2010-11. In view of the eligible qualified teachers in the following subjects were included in the panel, namely, Tamil-69, English-2, Science-3 and History-11, while conducting the counselling on 17.07.2010 by the then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, he has given promotion from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher to B.T.Assistant without following the procedure and rules. Moreover, he has also overlooked the seniority and also the actual number of vacancies. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, stated that if the case of the respondent that the then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer has gone beyond his limit, that is in excess of vacancies, filled up the post of B.T.Assistant or Elementary School Headmaster, subsequently, the Department/respondent himself, even in 2012, has given promotions to several persons to the post of B.T.Assistant and Elementary School Headmaster, therefore, the question of exceeding the limit does not arise. This apprehension and doubt are unfounded, because the petitioners were all promoted in the counselling held on 17.7.2010, whereas the subsequent promotions given in 2012 are for subsequent vacancies that cropped up later on. 7. The vacancies available as on the date of counselling in the post of B.T.Assistant in 9th and 10th standards were only 11, out of which 50% viz., six posts were to be filled up by Teachers Recruitment Board and five posts were to be filled up by way of promotion viz., Tamil-3, History-1 and Science-1. Similarly, there are seven B.T.Assistant posts in 6th, 7th and 8th standards including the existing and future vacancies. This should be also filled in the ratio of 15:15:20: 20:30 of Tamil, History, Maths, Science and English. Further, in the panel for Secondary Grade Assistant to B.T.Assistant, there are 69 persons in Tamil, 2 persons in English, 3 persons in Science and 11 persons in History. Since the overall vacancy in Tamil was only 4, the Primary School Headmasters are eligible for promotion. Though the eligible Primary School Headmasters were available in Tamil, even after giving promotion to four Primary School Headmasters, the qualified Secondary Grade Teachers were given promotion, which is illegal and beyond the Government Order. Therefore, when complaints were filed by the Association indicating that the promotions were given in excess of vacancies without considering the subject ratio and the teacher-student ratio of 1:40 and also the principles of seniority, an enquiry was ordered by the District Collector and subsequently the report submitted by the enquiry officer also indicated clearly that there were several violations. Accepting the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the District Collector had cancelled all the promotions given to the petitioners and other persons. However, as there was no notice issued before the reversion order was passed, all of them came to this Court earlier by filing the writ petitions. This Court, finding that the principles of natural justice were not followed in all the cases while effecting the order of reversion, rightly set aside the order by giving one more chance to the respondent to give due opportunity. In deference to the orders passed by this Court, notices were issued to all the petitioners calling for explanation and accordingly, explanations were received from the petitioners. In deference to the orders passed by this Court, notices were issued to all the petitioners calling for explanation and accordingly, explanations were received from the petitioners. But the respondent, finding no merits in the explanation, finally rejected their case and again the petitioners came to this Court. Therefore, there is no merit or substance found in the writ petitions. Admittedly, when the then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, who conducted the counselling, had exceeded the vacancy limit, it is absolutely necessary for the District Collector to order an enquiry and when the enquiry report also supported the apprehension expressed by the Association in the complaint, the District Collector had rightly cancelled the promotion by passing the impugned orders of reversion. Therefore, no fault or flaw can be found with the impugned orders. However, it is open to the petitioners to make out fresh application and the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of seniority in the available vacancies. The reason is that, as highlighted above, the District Collector also, finding some irregularities that had occurred in giving promotion to several persons in excess of vacancies, had initiated departmental action against the then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, therefore, it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to go further into this matter. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail. As indicated above, it is open to the petitioners to make out fresh application and if there are vacancies available, it is for the respondent to consider their case on merits and in accordance with law. With this observation, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 and 1 of 2014 are also dismissed. No costs.