(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a BT Assistant in Mathematics in the year 1971. THEreafter, he had passed Master of Arts Degree in English in the year 1993. While so, a panel was drawn for promotion to the post of PG Assistant-English, in which all the persons who had possessed both basic, as well as Master Degree in English were considered. All the persons who had possessed only Master Degree in English had been considered. All the persons who were included in the panel were promoted on 28.1.1994. However, the panel was cancelled without any basis and without any reason, resulting in the reversion of all the persons who were promoted, along with the petitioner, in the month of January, 1994. THE reversion order had been passed in the month of May, 1994.
(3.) AT this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order, dated 26.02.2007, made in W.P.No.16968 of 2006 (O.A.No.1840 of 1996) passed by this Court, wherein, this Court had held, in similar circumstances, that such reversion is contrary to the Special Rules prescribing the method of recruitment. It has also been held that, pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal, on 11.01.1994, in O.A.Nos. 646 to 648 of 1994, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.NO.424, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 5.6.1995, to implement the order passed by the Tribunal by directing the Director of School Education to undertake a review of the individual cases. It is seen from the said Government order, dated 5.6.1995, that the statutory rules had not been amended and the provisions in the Special Rules, as they existed, were to be followed till they were duly reviewed and modified. Since the order of reversion does not disclose, either the amendment to the Special Rules or any factual finding as to whether there was any other candidate, who was qualified in the same subject, both in the under graduate and post graduate courses, it was held that the order of reversion passed by the respondent therein was bad in law.