These two appeals are directed against the order dated 111. 2004 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No: 7643 of 1997 filed by the 3rd respondent and aggrieved association seeking for an order to quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 04.04.1997 made in Ms. No: 131.

2. Heard Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Jinasenan, counsel for the appellant in W.A. No: 674 of 2005; Mrs. Sudarsana Sundar, appearing for the appellant in W.A. No: 357 of 2005; Mr. Balasubramaniam, Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Ganesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in W.A. No: 357 of 2005.

3. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel, would submit in his argument that the learned single Judge is not correct in coming to a conclusion that the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent made in B.P. Ms. No: 131 dated 04.04.1997 is unconstitutional and the reservation of appointment at 18% for S.C. and 1% for S.T. is also applicable for promotional post and, therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside on the sole ground. He would further submit in his argument that the learned single Judge had not noticed that rule of reservation as prescribed under the statute and under Rule 22 of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service as well as Regulation 8 of the Board are being strictly followed by the Board in all categories. He would also submit that the learned single Judge has not noticed that the reservation policy would be applicable only to the appointments made by direct recruitment and it cannot be applied to the appointments by transfer and promotions from the eligible persons of the subordinate categories.

4. He would further submit that even out of 52 persons promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers 10 persons belonging to S.C. and S.T. categories and the facts being such, it is incorrect to find that members of the petitioner association were included for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer. Similarly, he had also pointed out that the Assistant Engineers recruited in between 1981 and 1998, out of 1453 candidates 296 persons belong to S.C. and S.T. categories which forms part of 20.30% which is more than the reservation quota of 19% to 20%. He would further submit in his argument that due representations for the S.C. and S.T. candidates have been given appointments by direct recruitment and appointment by transfer and, therefore, the proceedings of the Board in B.P. Ms. No: 131 dated 04.04.1997 need not be set aside. Therefore, he has submitted in his argument that the appeal be allowed and the order of the learned single Judge may be set aside.

5. Mrs. Sudharshana Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No: 357 of 2005, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, submitted her arguments in the same lines as put forth by the learned Senior Counsel. She would further submit that the Board had followed the reservation policy in appointment as in rule 22 of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services for the direct recruitment of all the posts. As per regulation 8 of the said Board, all appointments shall be made in the order of rotation as prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time and in case of non-availability of qualified and suitable candidates belonging to S.C./ S.T. / B.C. / M.B.C. and D.C. for the selection of appointment the seats so allotted to them shall not lapse but the unfilled vacancies reserved for S.C./ S.T. / B.C. / M.B.C. and D.C. should be carried over to the four consecutive recruitment years namely the year of recruitment plus three subsequent years as per G.O. Ms. No: 34 BCC Department dated 02.05.2000. She would further submit that after passing of G.O. Ms. No: 1 P.W.D. (B2) Department dated 02.01.1990, the persons in the post of Junior Draughting Officer / Drafting Officer / Overseer and Tech