Order 1. W.P.No.12835 of 2007 has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent issued in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.PA4/23223/97 dated 28.09.2005 fixing the seniority of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 20 in the cadre of Assistants and quash the same insofar as the same relates to the petitioners and consequently direct the first respondent to follow the seniority list published by him in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.PA4/23223/97 dated 29.06.1998 so as to promote the petitioners as extension officers, Deputy Block Development Officers and Block Development Officers etc., earlier to the respondents 2 to 20. 2. W.P.No.13439 of 2007 has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent issued in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.PA2/5545/06 dated 19.02.2007 in and by which the respondents 2 to 20 were placed above the petitioners in the category of Extension Officers and quash the same insofar as the same relates to the petitioners and consequently direct the first respondent to place the petitioners above the respondents 2 to 20 in the seniority list of Extension Officers in accordance with the date of their appointment in the category of Extension Officers, so as to enable the petitioners to get promotion as Deputy Block Development Officers earlier to respondents 2 to 20. 3. Prior to 1984, due to huge backlog of vacancies in the cadre of Junior Assistants, method of making temporary appointments through Employment Exchange under General Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules came to be adopted. The petitioners herein were such temporary appointees appointed as temporary Junior Assistants in the Panchayat Development Department under General Rule 10(a)(i). Likewise, the respondents 2 to 20 were initially appointed under general Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules as Junior Assistants in the Revenue Department. 4. Since such junior assistants were working for a long time in various departments, due to delay in selection of candidates by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regular appointment to the said post, the Government took a policy decision to regularize all the temporary Junior Assistants in the respective departments in which they were working as on 25.06.1984. 4. Since such junior assistants were working for a long time in various departments, due to delay in selection of candidates by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regular appointment to the said post, the Government took a policy decision to regularize all the temporary Junior Assistants in the respective departments in which they were working as on 25.06.1984. Accordingly, a scheme called “Special Absorption Regularization Scheme” was framed and it was given effect to by making it a statutory rule and publishing the same in G.O.Ms.548, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 19.06.1987. The rule thus introduced was named as “Tamil Nadu Special Absorption Rule, 1987”. 5. In accordance with the said rule, the petitioners along with others, who were working as temporary junior assistants in the Panchayat Development Department as on 25.06.1984, were regularized as Junior Assistants in the said Department with effect from 25.06.1984. Respondents 2 to 20 were the similarly placed Junior Assistants employed in the Revenue Department and were regularized in the said Department with effect from 25.06.1984 as per the Tamil Nadu Special Absorption Rules, 1987. However, due to the abolition of posts, as many as 228 employees in the cadre of Junior Assistants in the Revenue Department were rendered surplus and they were facing retrenchment for want of vacancy. 6. In order to protect their interest, the Government took a policy decision to absorb them in other departments. Accordingly, such persons from the Revenue Department were absorbed in various Departments including the Panchayat Development Department as Junior Assistants. Subsequently, when fresh vacancies were created and made available in the Revenue Department, those Junior Assistants, who had been transferred to other Departments, sought reabsorption in the Revenue Department. For the said purpose, they approached the then Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction that in such vacancies in the Revenue Department, they should be re-absorbed. The Tribunal allowed the applications and issued directions for the re-absorption of such employees in the Revenue Department. 7. As against the said order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 23.11.1991, the State of Tamil Nadu preferred appeals in the Supreme Court in C.A.No.2352 to 2355 of 1992 and the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 08.09.1994 set aside the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the applications filed before the Tribunal. 7. As against the said order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 23.11.1991, the State of Tamil Nadu preferred appeals in the Supreme Court in C.A.No.2352 to 2355 of 1992 and the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 08.09.1994 set aside the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the applications filed before the Tribunal. However, noting the fact that out of 228 Junior Assistants transferred to other Departments from Revenue Department, 186 persons had already been re-absorbed in the Revenue Department, the Supreme Court chose not to dislodge them again. In respect of those re-absorbed persons, the Supreme Court directed that they would continue to remain in the Revenue Department. So far as the remaining 42 persons were concerned, it was observed that as and when vacancies would become available in the Revenue Department, they would be re-absorbed in the same way as the other 186 persons had earlier been absorbed. 8. Even after the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was pronounced on 08.09.1994, respondents 2 to 20 were allowed to continue in the Panchayat Development Department itself. Promotions to the cadre of Assistants were given in the Panchayat Development Department without fixing the inter se seniority of those who were originally appointed in the Panchayat Development Department and those who were transferred from the Revenue Department to the Panchayat Development Department. 9. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 along with two other persons by names Miniamuthu and Veeraiya filed an application O.A.No.393 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu and District Collector of South Arcot Vallalar District, Cuddalore to accord appropriate placement to them in the seniority list by re-absorbing the persons who came from the Revenue Department, in implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal Nos.2352 to 2385 of 1992 dated 08.09.1994 and consequently promote the applicants in the said O.A in the existing vacancies or the vacancies that would arise in future in the cadre of Assistants. While the said O.A was pending, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal came to be abolished and the said O.A was transferred to the High Court of Madras and re-numbered as W.P.No.15484 of 2006. 10. While the said O.A was pending, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal came to be abolished and the said O.A was transferred to the High Court of Madras and re-numbered as W.P.No.15484 of 2006. 10. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 07.06.2007 with a direction to implement the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above and absorb the persons who came from the Revenue Department back in the Revenue Department within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, if not already re-absorbed. 11. Meanwhile, before the disposal of the said writ petition, promotions were given to several persons from the cadre of Junior Assistants to the cadre of Assistants. Before 1990, there were three categories in the Panchayat Development Department of South Arcot District which were interchangable. They were the categories of Junior Assistants, Rural Welfare Officers Grade II and Cashiers. By the virtue of the Government orders viz., G.O.Ms.No.282, Rulal Development Department dated 22.05.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.283, Rural Development Department dated 22.05.1989, all the three categories were merged into one and integrated seniority in the resultant category came to be prepared on 10.03.1990 and then on 11.12.1990. However, the list containing the inter se seniority between those who were originally appointed in the Panchayat Development Department and those who were transferred from Revenue Department was not prepared. On the other hand, on ad hoc basis, promotions were given. As such, the petitioners 1 to 5 were given promotion as Assistants on 22.11.1995 and the 6th petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 27.12.1995. Respondents 2 to 20 got promotion as Assistants subsequent to the promotion of the writ petitioners. 12. Before the promotion of any one who had come from the Revenue Department, a list of seniority in the cadre of Assistants consisting only of the persons who hailed from the very same Department, namely Panchayat Development Department, was prepared by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka/PA4.23223/1997 dated 13.12.1997. It seems respondents 2 to 20 were promoted as Assistants subsequent to the preparation of the said list of Assistants as on 01.07.1997. Even after the promotion of the respondents 2 to 20 as Assistants, no inter se seniority between those from the Panchayat Development Department and those who had come from Revenue Department came to be fixed. It seems respondents 2 to 20 were promoted as Assistants subsequent to the preparation of the said list of Assistants as on 01.07.1997. Even after the promotion of the respondents 2 to 20 as Assistants, no inter se seniority between those from the Panchayat Development Department and those who had come from Revenue Department came to be fixed. On the other hand, the seniority of those persons who had been promoted as Assistants from the Panchayat Development Department alone had been fixed as per the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.PA4/23223/97 dated 29.06.1998. The first petitioner figured in Serial No.97, the second petitioner figured in Serial No.90, the third petitioner figured in Serial No.91, the fourth petitioner figured in Serial No.86, the fifth petitioner figured in Serial No.98 and the six petitioner figured in Serial No.100 in the said seniority list. 13. Subsequently, the respondents 2 to 20 were promoted as Assistants. Without fixing the inter se seniority, promotions were given to the next cadre and the petitioners happened to be promoted as Extension Officers in the year 2001. Respondents 2 to 20 got their promotion as Extension Officers in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. As inter se seniority between those who were originally appointed in the Panchayat Development Department and those who were transferred from Revenue Department had not been fixed, the first respondent chose to fix their inter se seniority in the cadre of Assistants by issuing proceedings Na.Ka.No.PA4/23223/97 dated 28.09.2005 fixing the seniority in the cadre of Assistants. Thereafter the first respondent issued proceedings Na.Ka.No.PA2/5545/06 dated 19.02.2007 fixing the revised seniority in the cadre of Extension Officers. It so happened in the revised seniority lists both in the cadre of Assistants and in the cadre of Extension Officer, some of the petitioners were placed below some of the private respondents, namely respondents 2 to 20. Hence, they have challenged the above said seniority lists in these writ petitions. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is two fold. Hence, they have challenged the above said seniority lists in these writ petitions. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is two fold. The first one is that respondents 2 to 20, who were drawn from the Revenue Department and absorbed in the Panchayat Development Department when they were rendered surplus due to abolition of posts in the Revenue Department ought not to have been allowed to remain in the Panchayat Development Department and they should have been re-absorbed in the Revenue Department and that they can claim seniority in the Revenue Department alone based on their entry into service as temporary Junior Assistants under Rule 10(a)(i). In elucidation of the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that besides not disturbing the re-absorption of 196 persons out of 228 persons in the Revenue Department, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the remaining 42 Junior Assistants also should be re-absorbed in the Revenue Department in similar manner; that hence respondents 2 to 20 should have been sent back to the Revenue Department and that hence, they cannot claim or get seniority over the petitioners, who were originally appointed in the Panchayat Development Department and regularised in the very same Department with effect from 25.06.1984. It is their contention that respondents 2 to 20 cannot claim any lien in the Panchayat Development Department and they should have been sent back to the Revenue Department to be re-absorbed. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the direction of the Supreme Court issued in its Judgment dated 08.09.1994 in Civil Appeal Nos.2352 to 2385 of 1992 came to be reiterated by a further direction by the High Court of Madras in W.P.No.15484 of 2006 by its order dated 07.06.2007 directing the first respondent herein to re-absorb the persons, who had been absorbed in the other Departments consequent to their being rendered surplus in the Revenue Department, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order and that the first respondent committed contempt of Court by allowing the respondents 2 to 20 to continue in the Panchayat Development Department without sending them back to the Revenue Department for re-absorption. 15. 15. The second limb of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the continued employment of the respondents 2 to 20 in the Panchayat Development Department could be construed to be a waiver on the part of the respondents 2 to 20 of their lien in their parent Department and acquiescence of the Panchayat Development Department, since the petitioners had been qualified to be promoted as Assistants even before the respondents 2 to 20 became qualified to be promoted as Assistants and since the petitioners were promoted much earlier than the respondents 2 to 20, their seniority in the cadre of Assistants should have been fixed above respondents 2 to 20. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that besides re-fixing the seniority in the cadre of Assistants, the first respondent also re-fixed the seniority in the cadre of Extension Officers placing the petitioners below respondents 2 to 20 in that cadre also and that said orders were totally arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 16. In short, the second limb of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be that in the Panchayat Development Department for promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistant to the cadre of Assistants, one has to pass the Departmental Test; that the petitioners having passed the Departmental Test much earlier, got promotion, whereas the respondents had not passed the Departmental test and acquired the qualification for being promoted as Assistants and that the first respondent, in stead of fixing the seniority in the cadre of Assistants on the basis of each panel year for promotion, simply waited for the respondents 2 to 20 to acquire qualification to be promoted as Assistants, promoted them on their acquiring such qualification and thereafter chose to refix the seniority. According to his submissions, the said exercise was totally biased and arbitrary. 17. According to his submissions, the said exercise was totally biased and arbitrary. 17. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 20 that all along the lists of seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistants were kept separately due to pending proceedings and that the inter se seniority came to be fixed much later, pursuant to which respondents 2 to 20 were promoted as Assistants even though some of their juniors in the inter se seniority in the feeder category might have been promoted earlier; that such an anomaly was rectified by issuing the impugned proceedings re-fixing the inter se seniority in the cadre of Assistants and also consequently re-fixing the seniority in the cadre of Extension officers and that therefore, the same cannot be projected as biased or arbitrary exercise of power. 18. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the continuance of respondents 2 to 20 in the Panchayat Development Department was in violation of the Supreme Court order and also the specific direction of the High Court, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents relied on the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the O.A seeking re-absorpotion of 228 persons in the Revenue Department, but as a rider it has given a direction that despite the fact that the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, 186 persons who were already re-absorbed in the Revenue Department would continue to remain in the Revenue Department regularly. 19. In the normal circumstances, the respondents 2 to 20, who were regularized as on 25.06.1984 in the Revenue Department, in accordance with the Special Absorption Rules and re-allotted to the Panchayat Development Department on their being rendered surplus in the Revenue Department, could have taken their seniority with reference to their dates of original appointment in the Revenue Department. 19. In the normal circumstances, the respondents 2 to 20, who were regularized as on 25.06.1984 in the Revenue Department, in accordance with the Special Absorption Rules and re-allotted to the Panchayat Development Department on their being rendered surplus in the Revenue Department, could have taken their seniority with reference to their dates of original appointment in the Revenue Department. Such a straight jacket formula cannot be applied in case of fixing the inter se seniority of those who were regularized in the Panchayat Development Department and those who were regularized in the Revenue Department and re-allotted to the Panchayat Development Department like the respondents 2 to 20 herein, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.2352 to 2355 of 1992 and also the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.15484 of 2006 directing implementation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court by re-absorbing the remaining persons who had been sent to the Panchayat Development Department from the Revenue Department. 20. As pointed out supra, as many as 228 persons, who were regularized with effect from 25.06.1984 in the Revenue Department, on their being rendered surplus in the said Department, were accommodated in the Panchayat Development Department and other Departments. All those persons who came from the Revenue Department preferred a batch of original applications before the then Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for re-absorption of all those persons in the Revenue Department. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowed the original applications and directed re-absorption of all those 228 persons who had been regularized in the Revenue Department and re-allotted to the other Departments when they faced retrenchment in the Revenue Department on their being rendered surplus in the Revenue Department. As against the said orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the state Government preferred Civil Appeals on special leave petitions in C.A.Nos.2352 to 2355 of 1992. The said Civil Appeals came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 08.09.1994. 21. Of course, it is true that technically the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the applications filed before the said Tribunal. The said Civil Appeals came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 08.09.1994. 21. Of course, it is true that technically the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the applications filed before the said Tribunal. By the time the judgment of the Supreme Court came to be pronounced, by various interim orders, 186 out of 228 persons had already been sent back to the Revenue Department and re-absorbed there as and when the vacancies arose. As such, only 42 persons remained detached from them. The same was the reason why the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that those 186 persons, who had already been re-absorbed in the Revenue Department, need not be dislodged and on the other hand, they should be directed to continue to remain in the Revenue Department regularly. So far as the remaining 42 persons including the respondents 2 to 20 herein are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that they should be re-absorbed in the same away as the other 186 persons had been re-absorbed earlier as and when vacancies would arise in the Revenue Department. The crux of the direction issued by the Supreme Court shall virtually amount to confirming the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal barring the time fixed by the Tribunal for their re-absorption in their parent Department, namely Revenue Department. Only in view of the such direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the set of Junior Assistants/Typists/Cashiers in the Panchayat Development Department, who were regularized in the said Department by virtue of the Special Absorption Scheme and the set of persons who had come from the Revenue Department were kept in two separate lists. This was done in view of the direction issued by the Supreme Court that all those remaining 42 persons sent to various other Departments from the Revenue Department should be re-absorbed as and when vacancies would arise in the Revenue Department, which direction virtually created a lien for them in their parent Department (Revenue Department). 22. From the records produced by the parties, it is quite obvious that though respondents 2 to 20 got themselves qualified to be promoted as Assistants by passing the Department examinations, before ever the petitioners were promoted as Assistants. Petitioners 1 to 5 were promoted on 22.11.1995 and petitioner No.6 was promoted on 27.12.1995. 22. From the records produced by the parties, it is quite obvious that though respondents 2 to 20 got themselves qualified to be promoted as Assistants by passing the Department examinations, before ever the petitioners were promoted as Assistants. Petitioners 1 to 5 were promoted on 22.11.1995 and petitioner No.6 was promoted on 27.12.1995. Three out of the petitioners and two more persons had filed an application before the then Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as O.A.No.393 of 1995 praying for an order directing the State and the District Collector to implement the direction issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated 08.09.1994 made in C.A.Nos.2352 to 2385 of 1992 and to consequently promote the petitioners therein as Assistants in the existing vacancies and also in the vacancies arising thereafter. It seems only after the filing of the said application, the petitioners were given promotion as Assistants in preference to respondents 2 to 20. From the particulars furnished in these writ petitions, it is also obvious that before the disposal of the earlier Original Applications filed by the persons who had come from Revenue Department for their re-absorption, the second respondent was promoted as Assistant on 26.04.1993 and thereafter reverted on 13.09.1993. The same was done obviously on the conviction that those who had come from Revenue Department were to be kept in a separate seniority list and their retention or otherwise in the Panchayat Development Department would be decided based on the order of the Administrative Tribunal and the outcome of the Civil Appeals filed by the State Government before the Supreme Court. 23. Now it has been made crystal clear that the Supreme Court, by its order dated 08.09.1994, has issued a clear and categorical direction that the 42 persons (including respondents 2 to 20), who remained to be re-absorbed in the Revenue Department, should be re-absorbed in the Revenue Department as and when vacancies would arise. The same was the reason why the second respondent who had been given promotion as Assistant in April 1993 itself was reverted back to the post of Junior Assistant and thereafter none of the respondents 2 to 20 was promoted till July 1998 and about three years prior to their promotion, the petitioners were promoted to the higher cadre, namely the cadre of Assistants. Subsequent to the promotion of the petitioners as Assistants, O.A.No.393 of 1995 came to be transferred to the High Court on the abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and was re-numbered as W.P.No.15485 of 2006. A learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 07.06.2007 directing the District Collector to implement the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.09.1994 made in C.A.Nos.2352 to 2355 of 1992 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order made in the said writ petition, if the re-absorption in the Revenue Department had not been completed by then. 24. After the passing of the said order in W.P.No.15485 of 2006 dated 07.06.2007, probably because there was a change in the incumbent of the office of Collector of Cuddalore District, all the respondents 2 to 20 were promoted in between 13.07.1998 and 13.08.1998 unmindful of the above said direction issued by this Court. Such promotions to the respondents 2 to 20 were made in utter disregard for the direction issued by the Supreme Court which was reiterated by this Court in its order dated 07.06.2007. 25. Of course, the petitioners having been promoted earlier to the respondents 2 to 20, they did not raise any objection for the promotion of the respondents 2 to 20. The petitioners were given further promotion as Extension Officers in the year 2001 itself. Since the respondents 2 to 20 were promoted as Assistants only in the year 1998, they were considered Juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Assistants and they were promoted as Extension Officers in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. As such, in the list of Extension Officers also, the respondents 2 to 20 were shown as Juniors to the petitioners. However, in the year 2005, the first respondent (District Collector) in his proceedings Na.Ka.PA4/23223/97 dated 28.09.2005, chose to re-fix the seniority by placing most of the respondents 2 to 20 above most of the petitioners herein and pushing down the seniority of the revision petitioners. However, in the year 2005, the first respondent (District Collector) in his proceedings Na.Ka.PA4/23223/97 dated 28.09.2005, chose to re-fix the seniority by placing most of the respondents 2 to 20 above most of the petitioners herein and pushing down the seniority of the revision petitioners. Though the petitioners may not have raised objection for the promotion of the respondents 2 to 20 in the months of July and August 1998, they are aggrieved by the re-fixation of the seniority whereby the petitioners were shown as Juniors to the respondents 2 to 20 in the cadre of Assistants, even though they had been promoted as Assistants about 3 three years prior to the promotion of the respondents 2 to 20 as Assistants. 26. The first and foremost defect in the first impugned order is that the first respondent ought not to have ventured to fix inter se seniority between the Panchayat Department personnel and the Revenue Department personnel, who had been re-allotted to the Panchayat Development Department, in view of the clear direction issued by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court that they should be re-absorbed in the Revenue Department. The second defect in the impugned order dated 28.09.2005 is that even if respondents 2 to 20 were to be presumed to have waived their lien in the parent Department and became a regular members of the service of the Panchayat Development Department, the same could have been made only after the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.15484 of 2006 dated 07.06.2007. In such an event, the respondents should have been held to be juniors to the petitioners even in the feeder category, namely Junior Assistants and hence the exercise made by the District Collector to refix the seniority on the basis of the original date of appointment of the respondents 2 to 20 in the Revenue Department is quite contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court. 27. The third defect found in the impugned order dated 28.09.2005 is that by the time the said order came to be passed, the petitioners had been promoted to the next higher cadre, namely Extension Officers. They got promotion as Extension Officers in the year 2001 itself, whereas the respondents 2 to 20 were promoted as Extension Officers in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. They got promotion as Extension Officers in the year 2001 itself, whereas the respondents 2 to 20 were promoted as Extension Officers in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. The re-fixation of seniority shall have drastic effect as it interferes with the settled position in the seniority in the feeder category and the promotional category, namely the category of Assistants and also in the higher category, namely in the cadre of Extension Officers. Besides undoing the settled seniority in the cadre of Assistants and re-fixation of the seniority in the cadre of Assistants, the seniority of the petitioners has also been disturbed by the second impugned order passed by the first respondent (District Collector) in his proceedings in Na.Ka.PA2/5545/06 dated 19.02.2007, whereby the respondents 2 to 20 have been placed above the petitioners in the seniority list in the post of Extension Officers. As the same affected the prospects of further promotion of the petitioners as Deputy Block Development Officers and Block Development Officers, they have challenged the second impugned order also by filing W.P.No.13439 of 2007. The challenge made to the impugned orders has got to be sustained for the reasons stated in the discussions appearing supra. Respondents 2 to 20 cannot claim seniority over the petitioners in any of the cadres, namely Junior Assistant and Extension Officers. Respondents 2 to 20 shall be placed below the petitioners in the seniority lists of Assistant as well as Extension Officers. 28. In the forgoing discussions, it has been made clear that the respondents 2 to 20 ought to have been repatriated to the parent Department, namely Revenue Department and re-observed therein and the failure to do so was in violation of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.2352 to 2385 of 1992. 28. In the forgoing discussions, it has been made clear that the respondents 2 to 20 ought to have been repatriated to the parent Department, namely Revenue Department and re-observed therein and the failure to do so was in violation of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.2352 to 2385 of 1992. However, since the respondents 2 to 20 were allowed to continue in the Rural Welfare Department (formerly Panchayat Development Department) for about 14 years after the order of the Supreme Court came to be passed and for about 7 years after the order of this Court in W.P.No.15484 of 2006 came to be passed, it shall be inequitable to dislodge them and ask them to go back to the Revenue Department, especially when the others who were promoted subsequent to the promotion of the respondents 2 to 20 have not challenged the retention of the respondents 2 to 20 in the Rural Welfare Department, as well as their promotion to the cadre of Assistants and further promotion to the cadre of Extension Officers. A balance can be struck by quashing the impugned orders 1 and 2, namely Na.Ka.PA4/23223/97 dated 28.09.2005 and Na.Ka.PA2/5545/06 dated 19.02.2007 and directing restoration of the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistants and also in the cadre of Extension Officers by placing them above the respondents 2 to 20 in the seniority list. 29. In the result, both the writ petitions, W.P.No.12835 and 13439 of 2007 stand allowed and impugned orders of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.PA4/23223/97 dated 28.09.2005 and Na.Ka.PA2/5545/06 dated 19.02.2007 are set aside. The first respondent is directed to refix the inter se seniority of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 20 in the cadre of Assistants and also in the cadre of Extension Officers by placing the petitioners above the respondents. Such an exercise of re-fixation shall be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.