Judgment :- 1. The first writ petition (W.P.No.19461/2009) is filed by the five petitioners, seeking to challenge the selection list of 1100 Technical Assistants in the respondents Electricity Board and for a consequential direction to give the post of Technical Assistant to the five petitioners. Instead of impleading the selected candidates, the petitioners took out an application under Rule 2A to sue the selected candidates in a representative capacity by impleading the fifth respondent P.Boopathy as a representative designated to represent the case of selected candidates. 2. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 18.09.2009. Pending the writ petition, it was observed that any appointment made will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Subsequently, the matter was admitted on 20.01.2010. The applications for restraining the respondents from granting appointment order for 1100 posts of Technical Assistant, for a direction to reserve 5 seats of Technical Assistant to the petitioners pending the writ petition and for a direction to issue publication of the notice in the prescribed form as per the Rule required in M.P.No.5 of 2009 were closed in view of the order passed by this Court on 18.09.2009 stating that any appointment made will be subject to the result of the writ petition and hence, no further orders were required. 3. In M.P.No.4 of 2009 viz., seeking permission to implead the 5th respondent in a representative capacity for himself and for similarly placed 1099 selected Technical Assistants in TNEB, this Court initially ordered notice on 20.01.2010. Subsequently, it was claimed that proof affidavit has been filed for having served the 5th respondent. However, no orders were passed in M.P.No.4 of 2009. 4. It was thereafter, the second writ petition (W.P.No.23960/2009) was filed by another two petitioners seeking for an identical prayer. Initially, it was not admitted and adjourned from time to time. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 06.01.2010 and it was directed to be posted along with the previous writ petition. 5. In the application for direction, only notice was ordered. The application for injunction was dismissed by this Court on 04.10.2010. But in that writ petition, no attempt was made to make the affected parties namely the 1100 selected Technical Assistants as party respondents to the writ petition either individually or in a representative capacity has been made. 6. 5. In the application for direction, only notice was ordered. The application for injunction was dismissed by this Court on 04.10.2010. But in that writ petition, no attempt was made to make the affected parties namely the 1100 selected Technical Assistants as party respondents to the writ petition either individually or in a representative capacity has been made. 6. On notice from this Court, in the first writ petition, a counter affidavit dated Nil (November 2009) was filed. In the second writ petition, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. 7. The contention raised by the petitioners were identical in both writ petitions. It is stated by the petitioners that the respondents Electricity Board is governed by the Rules of reservation ordered by the State Government. The first respondent State Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.65 P & AR Department, dated 27.05.2009 introducing internal reservation for the Arunthathiyar Community within the reservation provided for Scheduled Caste and also directed the 200 points roster prescribed to be made applicable on appointments made on or after 29.04.2009. Since the respondents made selections for the 1100 posts of Technical Assistants only after the said date, they are bound to comply with the GO and follow the 200 points roster. Inasmuch as they have not complied with the Rules of reservation, the selection made by them was illegal. All the petitioners belong to Arunthathiyar Community and some of them have also completed Apprenticeship training. In that view of the matter, they sought for setting aside the selection made and for a direction to appoint the petitioners to the said post. 8. In the second writ petition, it was contended that they belong to Hindu Madari Community and inasmuch as the respondents have not separately allocated seats for the Arunthathiyar Community, the selection made was illegal. 9. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the Board has adopted 200 points roster prescribed by G.O.No.241 dated 29.10.2007 and strictly they had followed the guidelines. It was stated that on the basis of the Government clarification, no separate reservation was made for Arunthathiyar community and even within the persons who were selected, the petitioners did not reach the cut-off marks of 71.23 for female and 77.25 for males. 10. It was stated that on the basis of the Government clarification, no separate reservation was made for Arunthathiyar community and even within the persons who were selected, the petitioners did not reach the cut-off marks of 71.23 for female and 77.25 for males. 10. Though much can be said in favour of the petitioners and that the Government is bound to implement the GO, in the present case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions for more than one reason. Though an attempt has been made to implead the fifth respondent in the first writ petition as representing similarly placed persons, no attempt has been made to comply with the requirements made under Rule 2A of the Rules framed under Article 226 of the constitution and no publication has been carried out. On the contrary, their application in M.P.No.5 stands closed without any orders. In the second writ petition, even that effort was not taken by the petitioners. In the absence of necessary and proper parties to be represented before this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on this short ground. 11. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251 , in paragraph 28, it was held as follows:- “28. ‘The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh’s petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers concerned. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh’s writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.” 12. Further, even assuming that the writ petitions are maintainable, the petitioners have nowhere stated that they are eligible to get selected in the event of the roster being followed. In effect, they have not come forward to state that among the 1100 selected candidates as to how many are representing the Arunthathiyar community within the quota meant for scheduled caste and they have not selected in terms of the reservation commensurate with their population, the petitioners claim cannot be accepted. On the contrary, as stated in the counter affidavit, the petitioners are not coming within the cut-off marks prescribed as stated above. 13. In the light of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.