Order W.P(MD)No.15351 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to forthwith appoint the petitioner in the post of Assistant with effect from 01.09.2008 by way of transfer from the post of Steno-Typist. 2. W.P(MD)No.739 of 2013 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner as Assistant with effect from 01.09.2008 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the same with all attendant benefits. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of both the petitions, are set out thus: 3.1. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.15351 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Mrs.Lakshmi'), joined the third respondent college as Steno-Typist on 06.04.1988. She made a request to the third respondent to appoint her as Assistant by way of transfer and the third respondent sought for clarification from the first respondent in this regard. Thereafter, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 11.04.2007 and 29.12.2009, clarified that her claim could be considered. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.739 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Mr.Viswanathan') filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1193 of 2010 before this Court, which was dismissed on 07.09.2010 and the writ appeal filed by him was also rejected. Thereafter, Mr.Viswanathan filed a review and the same was also dismissed on 21.02.2011. Despite the same, Mrs.Lakshmi was not appointed as Assistant by the third respondent, according to her. 3.2. Whereas Mr.Viswanathan was appointed as Office Assistant on 01.04.1978 in the respondent college and he had been continuing as Lab Assistant and Store Keeper with effect from 03.08.1998 and he became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant. He sought aid of G.O.Ms.No.34, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (ME) Department, dated 21.02.2011, to claim promotion to the post of Assistant by transfer. Since there was a claim by Mrs.Lakshmi, his case was not considered by the respondent college. Hence, Mr.Viswanathan, is before this Court. 3.3. The respondent college filed the counter affidavits to both the writ petitions, to the effect that since both the petitioners had indulged in legal battle by filing the writ petitions before this Court, the respondent college was not in a position to consider their claims and that the respondent college is an aided college and it should follow the rules and regulations of the first respondent at the time of appointing the non-teaching staff. Further, it is stated that the college committee would take a decision on filling up the vacant posts including the post of Assistant. 4. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for Mrs.Lakshmi, submitted that the case of Mrs.Lakshmi had already been considered by this Court and the same had been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and also, in the review petition and that since her claim attained finality, the respondent college could appoint her in the post of Assistant to comply with the orders of this Court and that the claim of Mr.Viswanathan, would arise only after her promotion as per the orders of this Court. 5. Per contra, Ms.G.Thilagavathi, learned Counsel for Mr.Viswanathan, contended that as per the G.O.Ms.No.34, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (ME) Department, dated 21.02.2011, Mr.Viswanathan, is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant and hence, there could be no difficulty on the part of the respondent college in considering his claim and that he would get superannuated in the near future and therefore, he may be considered for such promotion. 6. Whereas Mr.A.Ravi, learned Counsel for the respondent college submitted that whenever the post of Assistant would fall vacant, the respondent college would consider the claims of the petitioners herein and comply with the earlier orders of this Court in this regard and that, the respondent college was bound by the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition filed against Mrs.Lakshmi and it had attained finality in the review. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 8. Earlier, Mr.Viswanathan, filed W.P(MD)No.1193 of 2010 before this Court challenging the order of the Director of Collegiate Education in giving instruction to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education to approve the appointment of Mrs.Lakshmi as Assistant and this Court, by order dated 07.09.2010, dismissed the said writ petition, observing that the approval granted by the Director of Collegiate Education in promoting her as Assistant was in accordance with the statutory rules and as per the decisions of this Court, while declining to look into the aspect regarding 5% quota for such promotion. Aggrieved over the same, Mr.Viswanathan, filed a writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.684 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed on 03.02.2011, confirming the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court. Aggrieved over the same, Mr.Viswanathan, filed a writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.684 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed on 03.02.2011, confirming the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court. Thereafter, Mr.Viswanathan filed a review in Review Application (MD)No.109 of 2011, which was also rejected by this Court on 21.02.2012, observing thus: "3. As there was no material placed before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court while arguing the Writ petition and Writ Appeals, the Review Petitions are not maintainable, as it will amount to permitting the review petitioners to re-argue the matter in the Review Applications, which are impermissible as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court." 9. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the respondent college has to appoint Mrs.Lakshmi as Assistant as per the orders of this Court and there could be no grievance for anyone in this regard. Hence, she is entitled to be promoted as Assistant in terms of the orders of this Court. Accordingly, the respondent college is directed to comply with the earlier orders of this Court and appoint her in the post of Assistant with all benefits, with effect from 01.09.2008. 10. It is reported that there are two vacancies existing now and hence, it is open for the respondent college to consider the claim of Mr.Viswanathan, sympathetically, for the post of Assistant, if there is no legal impediments. 11. In fine, both the writ petitions stand disposed of as above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.