Judgment : 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. In this writ petition, the proceedings of the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai in Pdl.No.24/2012/Q1 dated 22.01.2013 is under challenge. The said proceedings came to be issued in the following circumstances: Vacancies for the posts of Assistant Accounts Officer in Class-IV of the Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services for the year 2012-2013 were to be filled up. For the said purpose, the second respondent, in exercise of the powers vested in Rule 4(2) and Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services, included the names of the respondents 4 to 29 in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 2012-2013. The petitioners are all working in the Social Welfare Department in the cadre of Superintendent. A total number of 25 persons including the petitioners were sponsored by the third respondent to the second respondent for being included in the said panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. But the second respondent has included only 12 persons out of 25 persons in the panel. The petitioners, numbering 9, were not included. Thus the petitioners are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the panel and that is why they are before this Court with this writ petition challenging the said panel. 3. In this writ petition, it is contended that the panel has been drawn in gross violation of Rule 3(g) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services. According to the petitioners, as per the Special Rule, 60% of the vacancies shall be reserved for recruitment by transfer from among persons holding the post of Superintendents, Accountants or Auditors borne on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service in the scale of pay applicable to Superintendents. In this case, according to the petitioners, they should have been included in the panel as against the above 60% of vacancies for recruitment by transfer from other Departments. It is further contended that the third proviso to Rule 3(g) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services, has been wrongly applied to omit the petitioners from the panel. It is further contended that the third proviso to Rule 3(g) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services, has been wrongly applied to omit the petitioners from the panel. According to the petitioners, if only sufficient number of candidates are not available in the other Departments so as to fill 60% of the vacancies ear-marked for other Departments, then, the same could be filled up by the candidates from the Treasury Department. Here, in this case, according to the petitioners, there were sufficient number of vacancies available, but still the petitioners were not included in the panel. It is also contended that as per the third proviso to Rule 3(g), no Department shall have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in each Department. It is the contention of the petitioners that it is not as though the total cadre strength of all the other Departments was taken into account. But only the cadre strength of the Department of Social Welfare alone was taken into account to omit the petitioners from the panel. Thus, according to the petitioners, this is directly in conflict with the third proviso to Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services. 4. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows: "3. I submit that the petitioners in this writ petition has not stated all the aforesaid four provisions of 3(g) Rules and has simply stated about the ratio 40:60 (i.e. 2:3 ratio) and suppressed the details of other three provisions as stated above. Out of the 25 candidates sponsored by the Social Welfare Department, 12 persons were included and 13 persons could not be included on the ground of over representation in the said panel of Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 2012-13 as per the 3rd and 4th provision of Rule 3(g) of Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services Special Rules as stated above and hence they have not been included in the said panel vide Pdl.No.24/2012/Q1, dated 22.01.2013. The persons of Social Welfare Department holding the posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer as on 15.06.2012 (crucial date for inclusion in the panel of Assistant Accounts Officer) were 96 as against the three times combined cadre strength of 108 and hence the 12 persons were included in the panel and thereby the three times of the combined cadre strength of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer Posts has reached to 108 Nos. which is illustrated in the following table: 4. I also submit that the 60% ratio of Assistant Account Officer posts are filled up from the eligible persons belonging to 50 other eligible Departments. Therefore in order to maintain equitable representation to all other 50 eligible departments, one person should be chosen from each department and the appointing authority is required to take into account that no such department should have a representation of more than the three times combined cadre strength of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in that Department. Therefore, Social Welfare Department is not the only department coming under 60% quota and hence even though the qualified persons are available in Social Welfare Department, in order to maintain equitable representation among all other 50 departments, a department holding more than the three times combined cadre strength of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer cannot be taken into consideration and hence the 13 persons of Social Welfare Department have not been included in the said panel on account of over representation. Therefore, the panel of Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 2012-13 issued by the second respondent vide Proceedings Pdl.No.24/2012/Q1, dated 22.01.2013 is well maintainable either on law or on facts and it is in order." 5. The respondents 4 to 29 have filed vacate stay petition to vacate the order of interim direction granted by this Court in M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2013 in this writ petition. Along with the said petition, the respondents 4 to 29 have filed a detailed counter, more or less taking the same stand as has been taken by the second respondent. Therefore, there is no need to repeat the same by extracting the counter of respondents 4 to 29. 6. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully. 7. Therefore, there is no need to repeat the same by extracting the counter of respondents 4 to 29. 6. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully. 7. Before going into the factual aspects, let us have a cursory look into the relevant rules, ie., Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services Special Rules, which states that such Services shall consist also of Assistant Accounts Officers - Class IV (vide Rule 2). Rule 3 speaks of the method of appointment, which states "Appointment to the Classes specified in Column (1) of the Table below shall be made by the methods specified in the corresponding entries in Column (2) thereof". So far as Class-IV is concerned, the table reads as follows: 8. Rule 3(g) deals with apportionment of vacancies between various Departments, which reads as follows: "Out of every five vacancies in Class IV, the first two vacancies shall be reserved for recruitment by transfer from Sub Treasury Officer and Superintendents in the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices and that the remaining three vacancies shall be reserved for recruitment by transfer from among persons holding the post of Superintendents, Accountants, Commercial Accountants or Auditors borne on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service in the scale of pay applicable to Superintendents as above or from among persons holding similar supervisory posts carrying scale of pay not less than that of Superintendents in any other services. Provided that if in any year, the aforesaid ratio cannot be followed for want of qualified persons from Sub Treasury Officer and Superintendent in the Treasuries and in the Treasuries and Accounts Department the said reserved vacancies shall be filled in by recruitment by transfer from the posts specified in item (ii) in Col.2 in the Table under this rule and vice versa. (G.O.Ms.No.903 Fin(T&A) Dept. dated 13.08.90). Provided further that to maintain equitable representation not less than one person from each department shall be chosen subject to availability. Provided also that no department shall have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in each department. (w.e.f. 15.06.02) (G.O.Ms.No.335 Fin (T&A I) Dept., dated 17.06.04)" 9. Provided also that no department shall have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in each department. (w.e.f. 15.06.02) (G.O.Ms.No.335 Fin (T&A I) Dept., dated 17.06.04)" 9. A reading of Rule 3(g), makes it very clear that so far as the employees in the feeder category in Treasuries Department is concerned, they are entitled to have 40% of vacancies reserved, and the remaining 60% of vacancies shall be reserved for recruitment by transfer from among persons holding the post of Superintendents, Accountants or Auditors borne on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service in the scale of pay applicable to Superintendents as above or from among persons holding similar supervisory posts carrying scale of pay not less than that of Superintendents in any other services. Admittedly, the petitioners are not employees of the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices. They are employees in the cadre of Superintendent working in the Social Welfare Department. As per Rule 3(g), they are entitled to be recruited by transfer as against 60% of the vacancies. Up to this stage, there is no controversy between the parties. 10. The controversy is in respect of third proviso to Rule 3(g), which states that no Department shall have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in each Department. This proviso came into being, by means of G.O.Ms.No.335, Finance (T & A I) Department, dated 17.06.2004, giving retrospective effect from 15.06.2002. 11. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.35340 of 2002 etc. batch, dated 01.08.2006. That was a case where a similar panel drawn was challenged by the officials working in the Departments other than Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices. The main contention was that as per G.O.Ms.No.481 dated 10.09.1997, the Government had issued further clarification accepting the proposal of the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts to use his discretion without enforcing the guidelines made in the Rules, as availability of candidates is less than actually required. Referring to the said guideline and also a combined reading of the Rules, the Division Bench in paragraph 14 made the following observation: "14. Referring to the said guideline and also a combined reading of the Rules, the Division Bench in paragraph 14 made the following observation: "14. While considering the question of appointment against such 60% quota, at least a minimum of one person from each department should be chosen, subject to availability. Where, however, minimum of one person is not available, it is obvious that other eligible persons belonging to other eligible Departments coming within such 60% category can be appointed. At the time of such appointment also the concerned authority is required to take into account that no such Department should have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of the Junior Accounts Officer, Senior Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in that Department. This guideline is again subject to availability of candidates. If qualified candidates from other departments are not available, obviously this guideline need not be followed, which is apparent from paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.481 dated 10.09.1997. Only where eligible quota, such vacant posts can be filled up by selecting candidates from Sub-Treasury Officers Grade I and Superintendent Grade I in the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices." 12. Referring to the above, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the case on hand, as per the said guideline issued in G.O.Ms.No.481, when the other Departments were not duly represented as against 60%, the upper limit of three times of cadre strength in that particular Department cannot be made applicable. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners ought to have been included in the panel. 13. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 29, would submit that the said G.O.Ms.No.481, which is only a guideline, is not applicable as of now, because subsequently the rule itself came to be amended by G.O.Ms.No.335, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts-1) Department, dated 17.06.2004 giving retrospective effect from 15.06.2002. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Division Bench had an occasion to consider the said amendment and the Division Bench was of the view that such amendment cannot be made applicable to the appointment which had already been made prior to the issuance of the said G.O. The learned Counsel would further point out that the Division Bench has categorically issued a direction that in respect of future appointments, the amended rules alone shall be applicable. The learned Counsel would refer to paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Division Bench judgment, which reads as follows: "17. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 27.02.2002 and the initial panel for the year 2001-2002 was prepared after such date. The direction issued by the Tribunal had not been challenged by the Government. It was therefore expected of the Government to follow the direction of the Tribunal and if such direction was not followed, obviously the panel was contrary to the direction issued by the Tribunal. Therefore, when contempt proceedings were initiated, it was open to the Department to rectify the mistakes in the earlier list. The persons who were originally included in the panel and subsequently deleted have not specifically included in the panel and subsequently deleted have not specifically challenged such drawal of the subsequent list either by amending the writ petition or by filing independent Original Application at that stage. Subsequent list has been given effect to and become operative. In such view of the matter, in the absence of specific challenge to the subsequent list, it would not be appropriate to issue any direction for quashing such subsequent list. The appointments made in the year 2001-2002, as per the revised list drawn in 2002, having not been specifically challenged by the persons affected and, therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the appointments made as per such lists. 18. The contention is to the effect that the rules, as presently amended, should now be applied and therefore the appointments should be quashed. Even though some provisions of the amended rules have been retrospectively applied, it cannot be said that the amended rules envisage that appointments having been already made should be disturbed on the basis of such amended rules. The contention is to the effect that the rules, as presently amended, should now be applied and therefore the appointments should be quashed. Even though some provisions of the amended rules have been retrospectively applied, it cannot be said that the amended rules envisage that appointments having been already made should be disturbed on the basis of such amended rules. In our opinion, the provisions of the amended rules would not be applicable to the list which was finalised as per the observation made by the Tribunal. However, the appointments after introduction of the amended rules obviously have to be made keeping in view the provisions contained in the amended rules. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of with the observation that the appointments to be made hereafter should be on the basis of the amended Rules. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of, subject of the aforesaid observations and directions." 14. Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 29 would submit that insofar as the Social Welfare Department is concerned, 25 candidates including the petitioners, were sponsored by the third respondent to the second respondent. The crucial date for inclusion in the panel was 15.06.2012. As on the crucial date, there were 19 officers from the Department of Social Welfare already working in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in the Treasury Department. Therefore, there were only 12 remaining vacancies to be filled up for the year 2012-2013 from the Social Welfare Department. That is why, out of the 25 persons sponsored by the third respondent, only 12 were included in the panel and 13 persons, including the petitioners herein, were omitted. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 29 would further submit that this has been done in tune with the directions issued by the Division Bench in the judgment cited supra. 15. I have considered the above submissions. As per the third proviso to Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services, it is crystal clear that no Department shall have a representation of more than three times the combined cadre strength of posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in each Department. This statutory rule was brought into being by G.O.Ms.No.335, Finance (T & A I) Department, dated 17.06.2004, giving retrospective effect from 15.06.2002. This statutory rule was brought into being by G.O.Ms.No.335, Finance (T & A I) Department, dated 17.06.2004, giving retrospective effect from 15.06.2002. As of now, for the present panel, this proviso is certainly applicable about which there can be no doubt. But the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as already I have stated, would place much reliance on G.O.Ms.No.481 dated 10.09.1997. This Government Order is only administrative guidelines issued which cannot have overriding effect over the statutory provisions. Statutory rule was amended as per G.O.Ms.No.335, Finance (T & A I) Department, dated 17.06.2004 subsequently. This was well considered by the Division Bench in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment, and the Division Bench has categorically stated that in the case before the Division Bench, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.481 along with the Rule which stood unamended should have been followed, because the recruitment was made prior to coming into force of G.O.Ms.No.335. But the Division Bench has categorically held that in respect of future recruitments it is only the amended rule which shall be made applicable. As directed by the Division Bench, if we look into the amended Rule, viz. the third proviso to Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services, it is crystal clear that Social Welfare Department cannot have more than 3 times the cadre strength. Admittedly, already there were 96 persons working in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer. The three times of cadre strength is only 108. Therefore, only 12 persons can be recruited by transfer from the Social Welfare Department. Thus, in my considered opinion, the petitioners have been rightly not included in the panel. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms.No.481 the petitioners ought to have been included in the panel cannot be accepted because, this guideline cannot be enforced as against the statutory provision which was amended by means of G.O.Ms.No.335. 16. The learned Senior Counsel would nextly contend that if the aforesaid ratio (40:60) cannot be followed for want of qualified persons from Sub Treasury Offices and Superintendent in the Treasuries and in the Treasuries and Accounts Department, the said reserved vacancies shall be filled in by recruitment by transfer from the posts specified in item (ii) in Col.2 in the Table under the rule and vice versa. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that if only the total cadre strength of all the Departments which do fall in the feeder category is taken into account, then, it can be measured whether all the Departments put together have got the 60% or not. This argument does not pursue me at all. The proviso clearly says that if any vacancy which is ear-marked for other Departments could not be filled up for want of eligible candidates, the same needs to be filled up only by recruiting the officials in the Treasury Department. The third proviso is applicable only to other Departments other than the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices. A plain reading of this proviso would clearly indicate the same. Further the Division Bench in paragraph-14 has held that only where eligible candidates are not available to fill up the posts, ie., 60% quota, such vacant posts can be filled up by selecting candidates from Sub-Treasury Officers Grade I and Superintendent Grade I in the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices. Thus, in this case, so far as the Social Welfare Department is concerned, such Department has been sufficiently represented by including 12 persons in the panel so as to make the cadre strength at 108. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance regarding the inclusion of respondents 5 to 29. 17. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the candidates who are working in other Departments other than the Social Welfare Department ought to have been included in the panel. For this, in my considered opinion, if any other candidate who is working in any Department other than the Department of Treasuries and Pay and Accounts and Social Welfare Department, is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name in the panel as against the 60% quota, it is for him to work out. I only say that the petitioners herein cannot have any grievance regarding the non-inclusion of candidates in any other Department. As already pointed out, so far as Social Welfare Department is concerned, they are entitled to have 108 persons working in the Treasury Department and by including 12 names, that quota has been completed. Therefore 13 persons, including the petitioners herein, could not be included though the third respondent had sponsored their names. As already pointed out, so far as Social Welfare Department is concerned, they are entitled to have 108 persons working in the Treasury Department and by including 12 names, that quota has been completed. Therefore 13 persons, including the petitioners herein, could not be included though the third respondent had sponsored their names. Merely because the third respondent had sponsored their names, it cannot be held that they are entitled for being included in the panel. 18. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 29 would rely on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22658 of 2006 dated 17.08.2010. In that case also, a person who was working in the Social Welfare Department challenged G.O.Ms.No.335 for non-inclusion of her name in the panel for promotion. Taking a similar view as I have taken hereinabove, the learned single Judge (Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar), by order dated 17.08.2010, has dismissed the writ petition, upholding the amendment. Thus, looking at the grounds raised by the petitioners, from any angle, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned panel. I also hold that the impugned panel has been prepared strictly in accordance with Rule 3(g) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Services, and in accordance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra. Thus I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned panel. 19. In view of all the above, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed, and the interim direction issued by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.