Judgment 1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.3(D) No.8, dated 10.09.2014, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh estimate of vacancies for the year 2014-15 for the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II by earmarking 4 vacancies for 'open market quota' and also to initiate steps to fill up such vacancies under the open market quota in accordance with the rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the first instance, would submit that the petitioner, who is an unemployed graduate, has rushed to this Court being aggrieved by the action of the first respondent/State in not notifying the vacancies against the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II, which is the entry level post in the Tamil Nadu Municipal Commissioners Subordinate Service, under the 'Open Market Quota'. By elaborating the submissions, he would state that Rule-2 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Municipal Commissioners Subordinate Service (in short 'Special Rules'), while providing the modes of appointments to the service as: a) by Direct Recruitment from persons who have served as Manager of all Municipal Offices or as Accountant and Revenue Officer of all Municipalities; b) from Open Market; and c) by recruitment by transfer from among the holders of the posts as specified in the Rule, also provides a Roster for filling up the vacancies, whereby, for every 20 vacancies, 5 are earmarked for Graduates from the open market. In respect of such candidates from the open market, as per Rule-4 of the Special Rules, the qualification prescribed is that the candidate should hold a Degree and he/she should not have completed 30 years of age on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment is made. While so, the petitioner, who is a holder of B.C.A. and M.B.A. Degrees and aged 29 years as on the crucial date for the current year/2014, thereby, it being the last opportunity for him to be considered for appointment to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II, was eagerly awaiting the notification of vacancies under the open market quota so that he would get an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Even during the panel years 2010-11 and 2011-12, no vacancy was filled up under the open market quota. Even during the panel years 2010-11 and 2011-12, no vacancy was filled up under the open market quota. While so, very unfortunately, as against the 18 vacancies that arose in the year 2014-15, no vacancy has been notified against the Open Market Quota in the impugned G.O.Ms. No.3(d) No.8, dated 10.09.2014. According to the learned counsel, if the ratio as provided under Rule-2 of the Special Rules has been duly followed, at least 4 vacancies should have been notified against the Open Market Quota. Therefore, he would state that the impugned G.O. is not only contrary to Rule-2 of the Special Rules but it is also arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the decisions reported in 1999 (2) SCC 330 (State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and another), 1999 (3) SCC 384 (All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and others), 2009 (6) MLJ 434 (Union of India v. R. Chitra) and 1995 (2) SCC 745 (R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab) to highlight the point that when there are more than one method of recruitment and a ratio/quota is prescribed for such methods, such quota has to be applied to the vacancies arising in a given year and not with reference to the overall cadre strength. In other words, a vacancy created by retirement of a promotee is not to be exclusively filled by another promotee and such vacancy is to be filled up in accordance with the ratio prescribed. In the present case, by clear deviation from the mode relating to roster as provided under Rule-2, ultimately, the employment opportunity of the petitioner is deprived of unjustly, hence, interference is called for by this Court for quashing the impugned G.O. and directing the authorities to earmark the vacancies against the Open Market Quota and fill up the same in accordance with the Rules; he pleaded. 3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the category of candidates from the Open Market are already occupying more cadre strength than the ratio sanctioned to them viz., 20 against 12. 3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the category of candidates from the Open Market are already occupying more cadre strength than the ratio sanctioned to them viz., 20 against 12. In that scenario, as claimed by the petitioner, if more vacancies are allotted to the category of candidates from open market in 2014-15 as well, such extraordinary consideration in favour of the candidates under the Open Market Quota would ultimately defeat the rights of the candidates from other categories who have represented to the Government to maintain the ratio without making any undue favour to any category more than the ratio prescribed. Therefore, keeping in mind the fact that the open market candidates already had more strength, the vacancies arising in 2014-15 were rightly allocated in such a manner that it would not exceed their cadre strength ratio as prescribed in Rule-2 of the Special Rules. In an endeavour to demonstrate that vacancies were filled up during 2010-11 and 2011-12 under the Open Market Quota, he would submit that 3 vacancies for the year 2010-11 and 11 vacancies for the year 2011-12 were allotted to the category of candidates from Open Market as per Government Letter No.32145/ME.1/2011-10, dated 23.05.2012, and all those 14 vacancies were filled up through the TNPSC. The decisions reported in 1999 (5) SCC 624 (S.Prakash v. K.M. Kurian) and 1995 (2) SCC 745 (cited supra) have been relied upon to highlight the proposition that when the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of the roster, then the result envisaged by the impugned instructions is achieved and that there is no justification to operate the roster thereafter. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the impugned Government Order having been issued in consonance with the rules in force, the claim of the petitioner has to be rejected in toto. So submitting, he pleaded for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. I see considerable force in the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General as the same carry more merit. Even though the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit by refuting the details relating to the number of vacancies and the mode adopted by the respondents to fill up the same, the break-up figures furnished by the petitioner cannot be taken as such, since the particulars are not supported by any authentic material or official endorsement. Even though the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit by refuting the details relating to the number of vacancies and the mode adopted by the respondents to fill up the same, the break-up figures furnished by the petitioner cannot be taken as such, since the particulars are not supported by any authentic material or official endorsement. In fact, the claim of the petitioner in the reply affidavit with reference to material particulars varies from that of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Be that as it may, as per Rules, in particular Rule-2 of the Special Rules, the vacancies are to be filled up in the ratio of 6:5:9 viz., Municipal Employees-6, through TNPSC-5 and Recruitment by Transfer-9, without exceeding their respective cadre strength. It must be pointed out that the Special Rules do not provide that the vacancies shall be allotted on rotation basis and, to be more clear, Rule-2 only prescribes the ratio for the categories. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, in the year 2013, as against the sanctioned cadre strength of 12 under the Open Market Quota, the candidates under the said Quota were 20, which prompted the other category people to represent to the Government to strictly maintain the ratio without showing any undue favour to any category more than the ratio prescribed. That is why, the 18 vacancies that arose in 2014-15 were allocated to other categories in strict adherence to the mode and ratio prescribed in Rule-2 of the Special Rules. This Court endorses the clarification made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the existing incumbents in the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-II under the Open Market Category are likely to be promoted as Municipal Commissioner Grade-I during the next panel year 2015-16 after completion of their probation, whereupon, the cadre strength will eventually fall below their permitted limit of 12 and thereafter, the accruing vacancies against the ratio will be filled up only with the candidates from the Open Market. Having regard to the personal grievance of the petitioner, it must be pointed out that the procrastination on the part of the petitioner in endeavouring to make only the final attempt at the fag end of the qualification period, that is at the age of 29, cannot be cited as a ground to assail the Government Order. Having regard to the personal grievance of the petitioner, it must be pointed out that the procrastination on the part of the petitioner in endeavouring to make only the final attempt at the fag end of the qualification period, that is at the age of 29, cannot be cited as a ground to assail the Government Order. Thus, when already the number of candidates under the Open Market Quota are above the prescribed ratio viz., 20 against 12, which necessitated the Authorities to restrict the present vacancies for the categories other than the Open Market Quota and further, in the light of the clarification made before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General that quota under the Open Market would be duly allocated in the next panel year i.e., 2015-16 owing to the fall down of the Open Market Category candidates below the permitted limit of 12 at that time, the petitioner cannot have any grievance and this Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned Government Order for setting aside the same. 5. In fine, Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.