JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed against the disputes with regard to the assignment of Seniority in the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. W.P. (C) No. 14178 of 2012 is filed by persons who are working as "Metre Readers" claiming promotion to the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical). Further declaration is sought that the Meter Readers including petitioners are entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the quota earmarked for them. 3. W.P. (C) No. 17044 of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 2600 of 2013 are filed by Overseers (Electrical) seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to promote them as Sub-Engineers. It is prayed that excess promotees from the cadre of Meter Readers presently working as Sub-Engineers should be reverted to maintain the quota reserved for overseers as on 04.01.2010. W.P. (C) No. 2600 of 2015 is preferred by the Kerala Electricity Executive Staff Organisation challenging Ext.P1 order, applying the ratio of 50:10 between Meter Readers and Overseers, in so far as it seeks to implement the said ratio in respect of arising vacancies. It is prayed that ratio should be applied to the cadre strength of Sub- Engineers and that the application of the quota to arising vacancies is illegal. 4. It is submitted that the appointment to the post of Sub-Engineers in the Kerala State Electricity Board was governed by Board order dated 23.01.1981, by which the post of Overseer (Electrical) was a feeder category for promotion as Sub-Engineers. As per the long term settlement of the year 2000, it was decided that the post of Meter Readers shall be treated as feeder category for promotion to the post of Sub-Engineers and the post of Overseers (Electrical) shall cease to be a feeder category. 5. All qualified overseers (Electrical) had been promoted before the said settlement was implemented. Later, by Board order dated 13.07.2007, it was decided that the Meter Readers shall be a feeder category for promotion to the post of Sub-Engineers against 60% and the remaining 40% was to be filled up by Direct recruitment. Later, by order dated 02.08.2010, it was decided that the 60% quota set apart for promotion could be apportioned between Meter Readers and Overseers in the ratio of 50:10. Later, by order dated 02.08.2010, it was decided that the 60% quota set apart for promotion could be apportioned between Meter Readers and Overseers in the ratio of 50:10. It was directed that the vacancies arising against 60% quota for promotion to the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) from the date of the modified settlement will be apportioned between Meter Readers and Overseers, having general and technical qualification with experience prescribed as below:- (i) 50% from qualified Meter Readers with 5 years experience. (ii) 10% from qualified Overseers with 5 years experience. 6. The operation of this quota as against the arising vacancies is, what is in dispute in these writ petitions. 7. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 2600 of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 17044 of 2013, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 14178 of 2012 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board. 8. It is submitted that the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 2600 of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 17044 of 2013 that, going by Note 3 to Rule 5 of Part II, Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, any quota with regard to the different methods of appointments to a post is to be applied to the cadre strength of the post in question. Relying on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Seethilal vs. State of Kerala, 2000 (2) KLT 475 as affirmed in 2001 (3) KLT 746 , it is argued that going by the provisions of General Rules, the quota prescribed is to be applied to the cadre strength and not to the arising vacancies which would be an undeterminable number. It is submitted that the cadre strength of Sub-Engineers, even according to the respondents was 3127 excluding compassionate appointments, physically handicapped and special recruitment. It is therefore contended that 10% of the said quota would come to 313 and 313 posts have to be filled up by promoting Overseers. It is submitted that only 72 persons are working against the said quota, while 484 Meter Readers are in excess. It is therefore sought that excess meter readers may be reverted and overseers (Electrical) promoted for implementing the quota to the cadre strength. 9. It is submitted that only 72 persons are working against the said quota, while 484 Meter Readers are in excess. It is therefore sought that excess meter readers may be reverted and overseers (Electrical) promoted for implementing the quota to the cadre strength. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 14178 of 2012 on the other hand, contended that there was no provision for promotion of Overseers to the cadre of Sub-Engineers from 2000 to 2010. It is contended that while restoring Overseers (Electrical) as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Sub-Engineers and allotting them quota of 10%, the Board had specifically considered whether the quota is to be implemented as against the cadre strength or against the arising vacancies. In view of the fact that all the posts in the 60% quota, which arose between 2000 to 2010 had been filled up by promoting Meter Readers, a conscious decision had been taken to operate the newly reintroduced quota of 10% for promotion of Overseers (Electrical) as Sub-Engineers to the arising vacancies, since an operation of the said quota as against the cadre strength would work injustice to the Meter Reader promotees, who were already in place, in excess of the quota, newly reintroduced. 10. It is submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in Maya Mathew vs. State of Kerala, 2010 (4) SCC 498 specifically holds that where Special Rules repugnant to the provisions contained in Note 3 to Rule 5 of the General Rules, which come into effect after the amendment to the General Rules is in place, it should be inferred that the subsequent Rule, making a contrary provision was intended to prevail over the General Rule. 11. It is therefore, contended that the settlement of 2010 specifically chose to depart from the requirement of implementation of the quota against the cadre strength, since it was felt that implementation to the cadre strength would work injustice to existing employees. It is therefore, contended that the settlement, to the effect it seeks to implement the newly introduced quota as against arising vacancies is perfectly in order and is a conscious exercise which prevails over the already existing provision in the General Rule. It is therefore, contended that the settlement, to the effect it seeks to implement the newly introduced quota as against arising vacancies is perfectly in order and is a conscious exercise which prevails over the already existing provision in the General Rule. It is therefore, submitted that the claim raised in W.P. (C) No. 2600 of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 17044 of 2013 is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The learned Counsel also places his reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ravindran K. vs. M.G. University and Others, 2008 (4) KLT 45 to contend that Note 3 to Rule 5 of Part-II Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules would apply only when a ratio of percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitments/appointment to a post. As in the present case, where promotion is from two categories, the ratio is to be followed in respect of vacancies as they arise. 13. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board. The essential gist of the contention urged before me is that the quota is being applied by the Board to the cadre strength itself. However, it is contended that since the 10% quota provided by the Board order dated 02.08.2010 is a newly introduced quota. It is not practical to implement the quota as against the cadre strength immediately on its implementation. It is contended that the arising vacancies of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) would be apportioned to Overseer (Electrical) also, in terms of the quota until the 10% of cadre strength is reached. It is therefore, contended that an immediate filling up of the 10% of cadre strength by Overseers (Electrical) is not practical or workable and that the quota will be duly adjusted as against vacancies arising after 02.08.2010. 14. It is further submitted that the ratio would be applicable as against vacancies arising w.e.f. 04.01.2010 and that once the required number of Overseers (Electrical) are in place, going by the arising vacancies, the quota would then be applied against the cadre strength so as to make it a definite number. This appears to be the gist of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB. 15. I have considered the rival contentions at considerable length. This appears to be the gist of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB. 15. I have considered the rival contentions at considerable length. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner place reliance on the decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court to contend that the quota once prescribed between different methods of appointment is to be implemented as against the cadre strength which would be a definite number. The ratio of these decisions is to the effect that the cadre strength being a definite and ascertainable number, the scope for misuse of the quota rule or of departure from such rule would be minimised by implementing the quota to the cadre strength. It is further submitted that provisions contained in Note 3 to Rule 5 of Part II Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules specifically provides that quota is to be maintained as against the cadre strength. 16. I notice from the pleadings and the contentions taken in the instant case that there was no provision for promotion of Overseers (Electrical) to the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB from 2000 to 2010. The feeder category of Overseer (Electrical) for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) had been done away with, by the settlement of 2000 and the quota was brought back into effect only in 2010. 17. The result would be that the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) to the extent of 60% of the cadre strength would be occupied by Meter Readers as on the date of the amendment brought to the long term settlement by Ext. P1 order dated 02.08.2010. If the quota were to be operated as against the cadre strength w.e.f. 04.01.2010, it would lead to a situation where, the Meter Readers are far in excess of their quota, since the 10% quota is a newly carved out one. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 14178 of 2012 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB that it is to get over specifically this contingency that Ext. P1 order provided that the quota would be implemented as against vacancies arising w.e.f. 04.01.2010. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maya Mathew (Supra) has specifically considered the effect of later Special Rules viz-a-viz the provisions of Note 3 to Rule 5 of the General Rules. P1 order provided that the quota would be implemented as against vacancies arising w.e.f. 04.01.2010. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maya Mathew (Supra) has specifically considered the effect of later Special Rules viz-a-viz the provisions of Note 3 to Rule 5 of the General Rules. It has been held that where a deliberate departure is made to the Rule of implementation of the quota as against the cadre strength by later Special Rule, such later Special Rule should prevail over the provisions of the General Rules. The amendment of the settlement by Ext.P1 order dated 02.08.2010 can be read to be a later Special Rule since the settlements and amendments thereto would have the same effect as Special Rules in the case of employees under the Kerala State Electricity Board. 19. In the above view of the matter, since the reasoning behind the implementation of the quota as against the arising vacancies appears to be a well founded one, I am of the opinion that the condition contained in the Board order that the quota would be implemented as against arising vacancies will have to prevail over the provisions in the General Rules as to implementation quota as against the cadre strength. 20. In the above view of the matter, I find no merit in the contentions advanced in W.P. (C) Nos. 2600 of 2013 and 17044 of 2013. The said writ petitions are dismissed. 21. W.P. (C) No. 14178 of 2012 is ordered directing the competent authority in the respondent Board to work out the implementation of the Board order dated 02.08.2010, as also the subsequent Board orders by implementing the quota set apart for Overseers (Electrical) as against arising vacancies until the quota against the cadre strength is properly implemented. Consequential orders shall be passed by the competent among the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The other issues raised in these writ petitions are left open.