S. Nagamuthu, J. - (1.)THE petitioner was formerly working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany in Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. The respondent University has issued advertisement under Notification No. 1/2007(c) dated 28.02.2007, calling for the applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Professors, Readers, Lecturers in various disciplines as detailed there under. So far as the post of Reader is concerned, as per the Government Order, a Teacher who possesses P.hd degree with 5 years of teaching experience alone is eligible for direct recruitment as Reader. The last date for submission of application as per the advertisement was 15.03.2007. But, the petitioner submitted his application for the post of Reader on 20.03.2007. As on the date of advertisement, the petitioner did not have the required 5 years of teaching experience. However, he made his application to the said post. The University Selection Committee, held the selection process and selected the petitioner as Reader by its proceedings dated 21 to 23.03.2007. Thereafter, an appointment order was issued to the petitioner by the Registrar of University by his proceeding in Appointment Order No. 605/2007(c) dated 29.03.2007 thereby appointing the petitioner as Reader in the Department of Botany at the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000/ -. Accordingly, the petitioner joined service as Reader and he was so working.
(2.)WHILE so, it appears that there was some audit objection in respect of the pay fixed on the petitioner. Based on the same, the Registrar of Annamalai University, by his proceeding in University Order No. 1315/2013(c) dated 13.12.2013, reverted the petitioner back to the position of Assistant Professor from the post of Reader. Challenging the said order of reversion, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.)A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the same came to be passed only on the ground that as on the date of recruitment, the petitioner did not possess 5 years of teaching experience. According to the impugned order, as on the said date, the petitioner had 4 years 11 months and 6 days of teaching experience.