Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of reversion dated 3. 1995 reverting the petitioner from the post of Typist to the post of Record Clerk and the consequential order passed by the third respondent dated 3. 1995 and the further order passed by the 4th respondent dated 13. 1995 and for a direction to retain the petitioner as Typist in any one of the Town Panchayat in Villupuram District.

.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Record Clerk on 30.5.1986 and after due selection he was posted at the Office of the Town Panchayat, Ulundurpet. The period of probation as Record Clerk of the petitioner was declared as on 30.5.1988 by the proceedings of the competent authority dated 18. 1988. The post of Record Clerk and Bill Collector being interchangeable, the petitioner was posted as Bill Collector at Kattumannarkoil Town Panchayat on 210. 1990. The petitioner served as Bill Collector in the said Town Panchayat for ten months till August 1991. The petitioner was appointed as Typist and posted at Chinnaselam Town Panchayat and later she was transferred to Ulundurpet Town Panchayat and she joined there on 23. 1992. While serving as Typist in Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, the impugned order dated 3. 1995 was served on the petitioner on 13. 1995, reverting the petitioner as Record Clerk.

3. The reason stated in the impugned order dated 3. 1995 is that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Record Clerk to Bill Collector and then as Typist, contrary to the existing rules and therefore he was reverted, transferred and posted as Record Clerk in the existing vacancy at Parangipettai Town Panchayat on administrative reasons and seniority would be maintained in Villupuram District. The said order of reversion was stayed by the Tribunal on 20.4.1995 initially for four weeks, which was extended until further orders on 5. 1995. Thus, the petitioner is serving in the promoted post all these years.

4. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the post of Bill Collectors in the Town Panchayat was provincialised with effect from 112. 1988 as per G.O.Ms.No.800 Rural Development Department, dated 112. 1988 and amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.300 P&AR Department, dated 28. 1992. The petitioner was working as Record Clerk, which was a non-provincialised post in Town Panchayat. Hence the appointment of the petitioner as Bill Collector on 210. 1990 i.e., after 112. 1988 being contrary to the Government Orders, the reversion order was passed posting her as Record Clerk.

.5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Provincialisation even though was made in the year 1988, sub-rules were issued only through G.O.Ms.No.300 P&AR Department dated 28. 1992 and in the rules issued it is stated that a Bill Collector in the Town Panchayat shall be eligible for appointment as Junior Assistant in Town Panchayat Department if he is qualified and suitable and satisfactorily completed the period of probation as Bill Collector. Relying on the said rule, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having completed probation in the equal cadre of Record Clerk as early as on 30.5.1988, the further promotion given to the petitioner as Typist is in order and the reversion order passed is unsustainable. The learned counsel also submitted that even if the rule is against the petitioner, the same cannot be applied retrospectively as the vested right of the petitioner cannot be allowed to be taken away. Further, before passing the reversion order no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and therefore the principles of natural justice is violated.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that only due to the provincialisation with effect from 112. 1988 and strictly following G.O.Ms.No.300 dated 28. 1992, the reversion order was passed and the order havi