JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature of writ to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent herein in his C.No.A1/8881/2013 dated 14.03.2014 and the consequential order by the second respondent herein in his Rc.No.A1/5581/2014, R.O.No.81/2014 dated 19.03.2014 revising the petitioner's seniority in the rank of Havildar (Armourer) and the 'C' list of Havildars (Armourer) fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police (Armourer) drawn for the year 2014-2015 and further consequential order passed by the second respondent herein in his Rc.No.A2/11258/2013 dated 21.03.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondent herein to fix the petitioner's seniority as Havildar (Armourer) for the year 2005-2006 and fixing date of 'B' list of Havildar as 14.10.2005 and consequently direct the first and second respondent to promote the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police (Armourer) for the year 2014-2015 above the third and fourth respondents herein with all consequential service and monetary benefits.) The order revising the seniority of the writ petitioner in the cadre of Havildar without providing an opportunity to him is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner joined as Grade-II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Service and promoted to the post of Havildar. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the name of the petitioner was placed correctly in the seniority list. To his surprise, the third respondent submitted the revision of seniority unilaterally without affording an opportunity to the persons, who are likely to be affected. Thus, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition. 4. It is the settled principle that any order affecting the service conditions or the right of the employee is to be passed by the competent authority, only after affording an opportunity to the persons, who are likely to be affected, on account of any such revision are based on the objection submitted by the other employees or otherwise. 4. It is the settled principle that any order affecting the service conditions or the right of the employee is to be passed by the competent authority, only after affording an opportunity to the persons, who are likely to be affected, on account of any such revision are based on the objection submitted by the other employees or otherwise. In other words, in such circumstances, before effecting the revision of seniority, the principles of natural justice is to be followed and the persons, whose names were already included in the seniority must be provided with an opportunity to submit their objection or explanation, in respect of objection submitted by the other employees. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader is unable to establish that such an opportunity is provided to the writ petitioner and to other persons, who are likely to be affected on account of the revision of seniority in the cadre of Havildar. Even the counter filed in this regard is also silent about the opportunity to be provided to the affected employees, which is mandatory. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the case is to be remanded back for fresh consideration and for providing reasonable opportunity to the persons affected or likely to be affected. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in proceedings C.No.A1/8881/2013 dated 14.03.2014 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in proceedings R.O.No.81/2014 dated 19.03.2014 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to issue notice to all the persons likely to be affected on account of revision of seniority including the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such notice, the aggrieved persons are at liberty to submit their explanation / statement along with the document, if any, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of show cause notice issued by the respondents. Thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the issues on merits and based on the materials available on record and pass appropriate orders on merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 8. With these directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the issues on merits and based on the materials available on record and pass appropriate orders on merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 8. With these directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.