M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant Intra-Court Writ Appeal before this Court, as aggrieved persons, as against the order, dated 02.02.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 4276 of 2009, passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. Earlier, this Court, while passing the impugned order in W.P. (MD) No. 4276 of 2009, on 02.02.2017 at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, had observed the following:-

"10. It is the duty of the Respondents to substantiate the allegation by furnishing legally acceptable evidence. It cannot be stated in air that the compact disc was introduced due to vide spread complaints in respect of bogus rank number. Moreover, it is shocking to note that the panel for promotion for the year 2008 to the post of primary school Head Master was prepared based on the incorrect number given by the Petitioner herself and she was placed secondary position. This contention is unacceptable and the same would show that the Respondents are lethargic in preparing in the panel. It is for their duty to prepare the panel as per the seniority list maintained by them. All of a sudden they cannot do through the Petitioner from the 2nd place to 10th position. Further, the Respondents are not justified the preparation of compact disc without prior notice to the concerns teachers. Moreover the Respondents are not able to substantiate the compelling necessity of the introduction of seniority list in the compact disc. Apart from that the seniority of the Petitioner is from the year 1995 that cannot be shuffled all of a sudden in the year 2008 that too without any prior notice to the Petitioner and the respective Teachers concerned.

11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner has substantiated their case by way of documentary evidence and the Respondents are not justify the case in the preparation of panel for seniority by way of compact disc. The said exercise was nothing but arbitrary. Hence, the same would not stand in the way of the seniority of the Petitioner maintained till 2008."

And disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Writ Petitioner (Respondent in Writ Appeal) to submit a fresh Representation to the Second Respondent (Second Appellant) in respect of including her name in the seniority list in the appropriate place by narrating all the facts, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Also, a direction was issued to the Second Respondent (Second Appellant) to consider the Petitioner's case by giving personal opportunities and put her name in the seniority list pertaining to the order dated 08.05.2009. That apart, a direction was issued to the effect that after placing the Petitioner in the appropriate place in the seniority list, appropriate promotion be given, by granting all monetary benefits etc.

3. Assailing the correctness, validity and legality of the impugned order, dated 02.02.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 4276 of 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellants/ Respondents have preferred the present Writ Appeal by taking a plea that the Learned Single Judge should have seen that as per Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Subordinate Service Rules, each Union is a limit and the crucial date for the panel shall be First January of every year. Further, it is represented that only in respect of candidates selected during 1995 alone, the aforesaid Rule that each union is a writ was relaxed vide G.O.Ms. No. 388, E, S & T Department, dated 19.06.1996.

4. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants submits that such Teachers selected in 1995, rank was assigned and since there was vide spread complaints, the ranks were fed in a 'Compact Disc' with correct number published by the Second Respondent and the same were followed.

5. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants points out that the Learned Single Judge had failed to consider that the proceedings of the Second Appellant dated 12.03.2009