Judgment :- 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%. 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: 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 Technical Assistant in P.W.D. who had put in five years of service and acquired B.E. / A.I.M.E. Qualification will be eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineer on transfer of service and according to the said Rule, 59 persons were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers in the Board on transfer of service according to seniority in their service cadre dated 30.03.1990 since Rule of Reservation is not applicable to the recruitment on service. However, she would further submit that the similar G.O. Ms. No: 2337 PWD dated 011. 1990 permitting the appointment of junior drafting officers/drafting officers/ overseers, etc. to the post of Assistant Engineers on temporary post on acquiring B.E. / AI.M.E. Degree was rescinded by the Government by passing G.O. Ms. No: 860 Public Works (HRD) Department dated 210. 1995 and it did not mention G.O.Ms. No: 1 / PWD (G1) dated 02.01.1990 and it is still operative. Therefore, she would further add that the Boards resolution and proceedings passed in B.P. Ms. No: 131 dated 04.04.1997 on the same lines of the said G.O. Is also valid and with a view to give scope for departmental candidates to get benefit by acquiring B.E. / A.I.M.E. Degree and put up service of five years and in the said mode also the representation of the S.C. / S.T. candidates were given proper quota and, therefore, the order quashing the said proceedings is liable to be set aside. She would also submit in her arguments that the selection of candidates for any post will be placed before the Selection Committee / Board in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board along with instructions given by the Government from time to time and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the appointments done during 1997 by following the ratio 1 : 2 for direct recruits and departmental candidates. Therefore, she had sought for setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and the appeal be allowed. 6. Mr. K. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader made his submissions on behalf of R.2 and R.3 supporting the claim of the appellant board. Mr. Therefore, she had sought for setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and the appeal be allowed. 6. Mr. K. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader made his submissions on behalf of R.2 and R.3 supporting the claim of the appellant board. Mr. Ganesh babu, appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition would submit that the Board was adopting the recruitment of Assistant Engineers through direct recruitment and it has been changed not to recruit the Assistant Engineers by appointing transfer of service and it is fixed ratio at 1:2 for direct recruits and the departmental feeder categories who had obtained B.E. / A.I.M.E. Degree and had completed five years of service through its proceedings and thereby the method of recruiting the assistant engineers through direct recruitment has been affected and thereby the reservation of S.C. / S.T. candidates be appointed through direct recruitment at 18 % : 1 % is also defeated and the Board has not followed the reservation policy in the appointment by transfer of candidates from the feeder category and thereby the reservation policy as guaranteed under the Constitution of India has been defeated by the board and the proceedings in B.P. Ms. No: 131 dated 04.04.1997 paving way for such deviation from directly recruited assistant engineers in the Board has to be set aside as unconstitutional. He would further submit in his argument that the Government which passed a similar Government Order in G.O. Ms. No: 2337 (PWD) dated 011. 1990 in P.W.D. department to recruit the departmental candidates on appointment through transfer of service was rescinded for the reasons that it would reduce the post meant for direct recruits for which rule of reservation is applicable and the reservation policy of the Government shall be affect in G.O. Ms. No: 865 Public Works (HRD)Department dated 210. 1995. Further, he would submit that the said G.O. had also referred to G.O. Ms. No: 1 PWD dated 1. 1990 in the reference of G.O. Ms. No: 860 Public Works (HRD) dated 210. 1995 and it cannot be contended that the said G.O. had rescinded only G.O.MS. No: 2337 PWD dated 011. 1990. 1995. Further, he would submit that the said G.O. had also referred to G.O. Ms. No: 1 PWD dated 1. 1990 in the reference of G.O. Ms. No: 860 Public Works (HRD) dated 210. 1995 and it cannot be contended that the said G.O. had rescinded only G.O.MS. No: 2337 PWD dated 011. 1990. He would further submit in his argument that the proceedings of the Board is in consonance with the said G.O. rescinded by the Government which would also affect the rule of reservation police of the Government and, therefore, it also has to be held unconstitutional. He would draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the particulars given by the Board that out of 52 recruited persons appointed through transfer of service, 10 of them belong to S.C. / S.T. category and, therefore, the rule of reservation is not followed may not be correct as the proceedings of the Board itself is ultra vires the Constitution. Therefore, he would submit that the learned single Judge was correct in holding that the proceedings of the Board is liable to be quashed. He would also submit that there is no necessity to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge and the appeal be dismissed. 7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. The order passed by the learned single Judge is mainly based upon the fact that reservation policy as guaranteed by the Constitution of India is applicable in the appointments made by transfer of service and it is also found that the 3rd respondent Board has not followed the said policy in the case of appointment of Assistant Engineers on transfer from the feeder categories. Factually, when we go through the additional typed set furnished, the 3rd respondent Board has submitted two abstracts regarding the appointments made by the Board from 1992 to 1998 in Abstract No: I and from 1981 to 1998 in Abstract No: II. In the said abstract we could see that after the proceedings in B.P. Ms. Factually, when we go through the additional typed set furnished, the 3rd respondent Board has submitted two abstracts regarding the appointments made by the Board from 1992 to 1998 in Abstract No: I and from 1981 to 1998 in Abstract No: II. In the said abstract we could see that after the proceedings in B.P. Ms. No: 131 dated 04.04.1997, the direct recruits from employment exchange who were appointed were 39 from 1992 to 1998 and the appointment by transfer from lower categories for the same period was 106 and the number of S.C./S.T. Candidates appointed among those total 145 appointees were 60 and, therefore, the overall percentage was 41.38 which is more than 18% for S.C. and 1% for S.T. appointees. Similarly, in the Abstract No: II, the direct recruits obtained from employment exchange from the year 1981 to 1998 runs to 1,244 and the appointment made by transfer from lower categories for the same period was 209 and number of S.C. and S.T. appointees appointed out of those total appointees were 296. Thus, the over all percentage of S.C. and S.T. appointees were 20.37% which is also more than 18% for S.C. and 1% for S.T. appointees. The said particulars were not disputed by the writ petitioners even during the time of passing interim orders by this Court and this Court upheld the particulars of abstracts made in and had found a prima facie case in favour of the Board and made the interim order of stay absolute. Therefore, we could see that the appointments made from 1981 to 1998 or 1992 to 1998 through direct recruitment and appointment by transfer from lower categories do not violate the percentage of appointments guaranteed by the Constitution of India in favour of the S.C. and S.T. candidates. Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that in the appointments by transfer from lower categories and in the appointment of the Board made during the relevant period, the reservation policy was not followed is not correct. 8. As per Regulation 19 of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Regulations, 1972, the post of Assistant Engineer can be filled up only by direct recruitment and unmindful of the same, 206 persons have been appointed as Assistant Engineers by promotion from the lower categories from the years 1986 to 1988. 8. As per Regulation 19 of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Regulations, 1972, the post of Assistant Engineer can be filled up only by direct recruitment and unmindful of the same, 206 persons have been appointed as Assistant Engineers by promotion from the lower categories from the years 1986 to 1988. As it was contrary to the Regulations, they were not able to be regularized and since the Board did not have the power to retrospectively amend the regulations, the persons, who were appointed earlier, could not be regularized. Even though letters were addressed to the State Government about the same issue as early as in the year 1998 followed up to the year 2004, the State Government issued Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 2007 amending Section 73 of the Act enabling the Board for making regulations both prospectively and retrospectively and also made it mandatory that any modification or cancellation of regulations should be approved by the State Government. Pursuant to this, the Government also issued G.O. Ms. No.128 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19. 2007 regularizing the appointment of 206 persons as Assistant Engineers, who were recruited from the lower categories. In fact, as early as in the year 1997, by Board Proceedings being B.P. Ms. No. 131 dated 04. 2007, the ratio of 1:2 between direct recruits and recruitment by transfer was arrived at though it was done pending amendment to the regulations. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the petitioners, who were all Technical Assistants, have been fairly treated by the Board and necessary proportionate allotment of posts has been given to them in consonance with the strength occupied by them in the Board. It is also stated that while fixing percentage for each of the categories, the Board followed the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 1069 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 110. 1984 wherein it was stated that if the scales of pay of the feeder categories are similar, then for the purpose of promotion, a percentage of each feeder category can be prescribed taking into consideration the cadre strength of each of the feeder categories and further, that higher scale of pay in the feeder category may be considered first and thereafter, it can go down to the next higher feeder categories. It is also contended that there cannot be any combined seniority list of all Technical Assistants and Junior Draughting Officers and in the present case, the appointment is only by transfer of service. The ratio fixed by the Board based upon the percentage of each of the feeder categories cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the said arrangement is rational and will only enhance fair play in the action of the first respondent Board. Further, in the present case, all the persons, who were eligible, have been considered and depending upon the ratio fixed on each of the feeder categories, they have been promoted. 10. The argument regarding rescinding of G.O. Ms. No: 2337 Public Works Department dated 011. 1990 by G.O. Ms. No: 860 Public Works (HR 1) Department dated 210. 1995 is concerned, the said Government Orders governs the concerned departments and the said rescinding will only govern the appointment by transfer of posts in the said departments. The ratio of appointees through transfer in the said department may not be similar to that of the ratio of appointees of S.C. and S.T.C as in the Board till the year 1998 and each case has to be considered on its own merits and, therefore, mere passing of G.O. Ms. No: 860 (P.W.D.) dated 210. 1995 rescinding the earlier G.O. No: 2337 dt. 011. 1990 which is similar to that of the proceedings of the Board cannot be equated with the proceedings of the Board. The reservation policy as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is not in any way violated by the introduction of the proceedings under B.P. Ms. No: 131 dated 04.04.1997 and the ratio given under the said proceedings for direct recruits and recruitment by transfer at 1 : 2 was also not found to be against the reservation policy and in fact, the said impugned proceeding is helpful to enhance the appreciation of service through promotion and transfer appointments and at the same time in consonance with the reservation policy as enumerated in the Constitution of India. Therefore, the said proceedings of the Board needs no interference. Therefore, the said proceedings of the Board needs no interference. The order of the learned single Judge directing the quashing of the impugned proceedings by holding that the said proceedings are against reservation policy of the Government as envisaged in the Constitution of India is not sustainable and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 11. Under these circumstances, the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition by quashing the proceedings of the Board made in B.P. Ms. No: 131 dated 04.04.1997 is set aside and the writ appeal are allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.