JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Both the appeals, one by the private Respondent and the other by the State of Tripura, against the same judgment, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts involved are in a very narrow campus. The writ Petitioner, who is the Respondent in the appeals, had filed the writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the particular advertisement, by which the solitary post of Manager in the Printing & Stationary Department, Government of Tripura, was kept reserved for S.T. category candidates. The advertisement dated 15.11.1997, apart from laying down the required qualification, etc. also laid down the age prescription, which was 37 years as on 01.11.1997. The post was to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. It will be pertinent to mention here that the writ Petitioner, who is the Respondent in the appeal, being aged about 47 years, was not eligible to offer candidature in terms of the said advertisement. 3. As per the recruitment Rules for the post of Manager, the post is to be filled up by promotion from Deputy Manager with 5 (five) years service in the grade or by transfer from analogous post, failing which by direct recruitment. It was not the case of the writ Petitioner that he being in the rank of Deputy Manager was eligible for promotion and that he was sought to be deprived of such promotion by filling up the post on direct recruitment basis. Thus on both counts i.e. for direct recruitment and promotion, the Petitioner was not eligible to be appointed to the post of Manager. It will be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the writ and the appeal proceedings, the writ Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The advertisement was issued at a time when the decision of the Apex Court, reported in 1997 2 SCC 332 : Union of India and Anr. v. Madhav and Anr., holding that in a cadre of single post, provision for reservation in promotion by rotating the vacancies as per the roster point, was not violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It is on that basis the State Government in the aforesaid advertisement provided for reservation of the post of Manager for S.T. category candidates by operating the 100 point roster. 5. It is on that basis the State Government in the aforesaid advertisement provided for reservation of the post of Manager for S.T. category candidates by operating the 100 point roster. 5. Pursuant to the advertisement and the selection conducted by the authorities, the Appellant in WA No. 82 of 2006, who was the Respondent in the writ petition, was appointed to the post of Manager on 07.11.1998. Thus by now, he has rendered more than 12 years of service in the said post. 6. The Respondent herein as the writ Petitioner filed the writ petition for a declaration that the reservation of the post was illegal. Another prayer made was to appoint the Petitioner on the basis of his purported selection for the post in 1986. The Respondents in their counter affidavit denied the contention raised in the writ petition inter alia, stating therein that the Petitioner was never selected for the post of Manager in 1986 and that even otherwise also by means of a writ petition filed in 1998 the Petitioner could not have sought for a direction to implement the selection conducted 12 years back i.e. 1986. 7. It was the contention of the Respondents that having regard to a particular law in the field at that relevant point of time, by operating the 100 point roster, the post, in question, was kept reserved for S.T. category candidates. 8. We have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Bhushan, learned Counsel for the Appellant in WA No. 82 of 2006 as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State Appellants in WA No. 21 of 2007. None has appeared for the writ Petitioner. No prayer has also been made for adjournment. 9. Before proceeding with the issue relating to reservation in a single post cadre, we will have to consider as to whether the Petitioner at whose behest the said issue is required to be answered was a competent person to be considered for appointment/promotion to the post of Manager. As already noted above, the writ Petitioner was not eligible either for direct recruitment or for promotion to the post of Manager. As already noted above, the writ Petitioner was not eligible either for direct recruitment or for promotion to the post of Manager. That being the situation, he had no locus standi to make any grievance against the advertisement and the selection thereof consequent upon which the private Respondent i.e. the Appellant in WA No. l82 of 2006 was appointed. 10. It is true that the law relating to reservation has undergone a challenge in terms of which there cannot be any reservation in respect of a single post cadre lest same will lead to 100% reservation. However, it will have to be borne in mind when the writ petition was filed and for that matter the particular selection was made, law laid down in Madhav(supra) was holding the field and it was on that basis the advertisement was issued. Be that as it may, the most important factor is as to whether the writ Petitioner, at whose behest the issue was answered by the learned single Judge, was eligible for the post or not. As already noted above, he was neither entitled to get promotion to the post being in the cadre of Superintendent nor he was eligible for direct recruitment, having by far exceeded the age prescription, which was 37 years. The issue about his eligibility has not been answered by the learned single Judge, but on the other hand, the issue relating to reservation at the behest of the said Petitioner has been answered following the law laid down by the apex Court in its subsequent decisions. In our considered view the same could not have been gone into without first answering and or deciding the locus of the writ Petitioner. 11. The Appellant in WA No. 82 of 2006, who had offered his candidature in response to the advertisement, pursuant to which a selection was also conducted, and thereafter upon selection, has been appointed. No one, eligible for direct recruitment or for promotion to the post of Manager challenged the advertisement and the selection. It was the writ Petitioner, who had challenged the selection and appointment although he was not eligible to hold the post. Situated thus, there could not have been any challenge by the Petitioner, he himself, being not eligible to offer candidature for the post. It was the writ Petitioner, who had challenged the selection and appointment although he was not eligible to hold the post. Situated thus, there could not have been any challenge by the Petitioner, he himself, being not eligible to offer candidature for the post. It was never the case of the Petitioner that, but for the reservation provided to the post in question he would have been entitled to offer his candidature. Nowhere in the writ petition we find any such statement. 12. As already noted above, by now more than 12 years have gone by since the Appellant was appointed to the post of Manager. Meanwhile, the writ Petitioner has also retired from service on attaining the superannuation. 13. Considering all the aspects of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appointment of the Appellant should not be disturbed at this stage. We hasten to add that by issuing this order we have not gone against the proposition of law that there cannot be 100% reservation. We also add that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be a precedent in such cases. 14. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 458 of 1998, stands interfered with while upholding the reiteration of the law relating to reservation laid down therein. 15. Both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. We, however, pass no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.