M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of the CAT dated 31-1-2000 Annexure 26 to the writ petition and the letter dated 25-7-1995 and 3-8-1995 Annexures 20 and 21 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to promote them on the post of Junior Telecom Officer in the department of Tele Communication, Government of India with all consequential benefits. 2. We have perused the impugned order of the CAT and have heard submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners are holding various posts mentioned in the paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The petitioners 1, 2, 7 and 10 are on the post of Telecom Technical Assistant, the Petitioner No. 3 is Junior Engineer (Electrical), the Petitioner Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are Senior Telecom Operative Assistant (Phones), and the Petitioner No. 5 is Senior Telecom Office Assistant (General ). The Union of India on 15- 6-1990 made Rules for recruitment of Junior Telecom Officers vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. There are two sources of recruitment to the post of JTO namely direct recruitment whose quota is 65% and Departmental promotion whose quota is 35%. The promotion quota is further divided into three categories (a) 15% by promotion of departmental candidates through a competitive examination (b) 10% by promotion of Transmission Assistant Telephone Inspectors, Quota Exchange Assistant and Wireless operators through a competitive examination and (c) 10% by promotion from the aforesaid posts on seniority-cum-fitness basis through a qualifying test. Rule 7 of the Rules provides that the Central Government where it thinks necessary or expedient may by order in writing may relax the provision for any class or category of persons. 4. By notification issued on 27-8-1991 it was announced that an examination would be held for promotion vide Annexures 2 and 3 to the petitioner. The Rules were relaxed for the promotion quota, which was made open to all those who possess three years Engineering Diploma after Class 10th of 1st Class B. Sc. with Physics and Mathematics. This relaxation was made for five years i. e. upto the year 1994. The Rules were relaxed for the promotion quota, which was made open to all those who possess three years Engineering Diploma after Class 10th of 1st Class B. Sc. with Physics and Mathematics. This relaxation was made for five years i. e. upto the year 1994. Further relaxation regarding percentage of departmental quota for the certain cadres as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition and recruitment to the cadre of JTO was increased vide Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. The petitioners and others appears in the examination in which three candidates were declared successful against the 15% quota and two candidates against 10% quota. However, on 30-9-1993 the Federation of Employees made a representation to Respondent No. 2 to make a one-time relaxation in the Rules to promote all those who had passed competitive examination but could not be promoted to the post of Junior Telecom Officers, as very few posts were available. True copy of the result contained in letter dated 27-7-1993, representation of the Federation dated 30-9-1993 and letter dated 12-1-1994 are annexed as Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the petition. The demand of the Federation resulted in the letter dated 24-8-1994 vide Annexure-9 to the petition. By this letter the respondent No. 2 in reference to the earlier letter dated 13-7-1993 giving relaxation to persons on certain posts in direct recruitment quota made a further relaxation as a one-time measure and it was decided to divert all the available vacancies against direct recruitment quota to the departmental competitive promotion quota in order to absorb the persons who have qualified in the examination but could not be selected due to shortage of vacancies vide Annexure-9 to the petitioner. A further letter dated 27-9-1994 was issued in this connection vide Annexure 10 to the writ petition to declare the result of more candidates who had appeared in the examination on 14/15 March, 1992. Seventeen more candidates were declared successful vide letter dated 11-10-1994 Annexure 11 to the writ petition. By letter dated 21-3-1995 and 24-3-1995 Annexures 12 and 13 to the writ petition several persons were decided to be promoted. 5. In paragraph 12 of the petition it is stated that on 25-4-1995 the result of 50 candidates including petitioners were declared and they were held to be successful vide Annexure 14 to the petition. By letter dated 21-3-1995 and 24-3-1995 Annexures 12 and 13 to the writ petition several persons were decided to be promoted. 5. In paragraph 12 of the petition it is stated that on 25-4-1995 the result of 50 candidates including petitioners were declared and they were held to be successful vide Annexure 14 to the petition. By letter dated 30-6-1995/3-7-1995 of the General Manager Telecom, Lucknow a few employees were directed to take pre-promotional training meant for promotion as JTO. In this list of 14 employees the petitioners were not included although they were senior to the employees included in the list in the sense that their examination was held earlier. The respondent No. 4 issued another similar letter for similar purpose on 10-7-1995. True copies of the letter dated 3-7-1995 and 10-7-1995 are annexed as Annexures 16 and 17 to the writ petition. 6. Aggrieved against this discrimination the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 alongwith other employees filed OA No. 366 of 1995 and eight other original applications were filed by the petitioners and other employees being OA Nos. 527 of 1995, 271 of 1996, 324 of 1997, 374 of 1997, 571 of 1997, 18 of 1997, 116 of 1997 and 153 of 1998. In these OAs the petitioners made a prayer for directing the respondents to give the petitioners promotion to the post of JTO after sending them for pre-promotional training prior to others being sent. True copy of the OA No. 366 of 1995 is annexed as Annexure 18 to the writ petition. During the pendency of the OA the respondent No. 2 issued letter dated 25-4-1995 whereby the letter dated 30-6-1995 was cancelled. The respondent No. 4 then cancelled the very result dated 25- 4-1995 vide letter dated 3-8-1995. True copies of these letters are Annexures 19, 20 and 21 to the writ petition. 7. Thereafter the respondents filed counter affidavits in the OA stating that since through the two letters dated 25-7-1995 and 3-8-1995 the letter dated 30-6-1995 has been cancelled, hence the applicants were not entitled to pre-promotional training and promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officers. True copy of the counter affidavit filed in OA. No. 66 of 1995 is Annexure 22 and true copy of the letter dated 5-6- 1997 is Annexure 23 and a true copy of the order dated 13-8-1997 is Annexure 24 to the writ petition. True copy of the counter affidavit filed in OA. No. 66 of 1995 is Annexure 22 and true copy of the letter dated 5-6- 1997 is Annexure 23 and a true copy of the order dated 13-8-1997 is Annexure 24 to the writ petition. 8. By the impugned order dated 31-1-2000 the Tribunal has dismissed all the nine OAs holding that neither was there any exercise of power of relaxation nor had the letters dated 24-8-1994 and 30-6- 1995 been issued by the competent authority. It was also held that there was no discrimination. 9. It is alleged in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that it was never alleged in the counter affidavit before the Tribunal that the power of relaxation was in fact not exercised nor power was exercised by the competent authority namely the Central Government. It is alleged in paragraph 22 of the petition that on the basis of exercise of power of relaxation as many as 17 persons were promoted but the persons similarly situate were denied promotion as JTO. Hence it is alleged that there is discrimination against the petitioners. It is alleged in paragraph 28 of the writ petition that the petitioners have been declared successful in the departmental competitive examination for promotion as JTO on the basis of a valid exercise of power of relaxation under the Rules. By exercise of power of relaxation under the Rules direct recruitment quota had been diverted to absorb the employees of departmental promotion quota and some of those who had appeared in departmental promotion examination held on 14/15th March, 1992 were promoted. Therefore non-promotion of those similarly situated like petitioners is discriminatory. 10. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners it has been stated in paragraph 8 of the same that similar relaxation and diversion of JTO vacancies from direct recruitment quota to departmental promotion quota has been given by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited by order dated 29-8-2001 Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. 11. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. 12. In paragraph 4 of the same it is stated that the departmental promotion examination was conducted on 14/15th March, 1992 for filling the 15% and 10% quota vacancies for the post of JTO and the result was declared on 27-7-1993. 11. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. 12. In paragraph 4 of the same it is stated that the departmental promotion examination was conducted on 14/15th March, 1992 for filling the 15% and 10% quota vacancies for the post of JTO and the result was declared on 27-7-1993. In paragraph 6 it is stated that prior to 1-4-1995 the U. P. State had only one Telecom Circle but the position was changed on 1-4-1995 by bifurcation of U. P. Telecom Circle into two separate Telecom Circles namely Eastern U. P. Circle and Western U. P. Telecom Circle with headquarters in Lucknow and Dehradun. Separate Chief General Managers are administratively controlling these Telecom Circles. The district where petitioners are posted do not come under the control of Eastern Telecom Circle. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit it is stated that the department of Telecom, New Delhi realized that a wrong order was issued by them through letter dated 30th June, 1995 allowing persons who qualified against the 15% quota (all Group C cadre) to be absorbed against the direct recruitment quota after diverting the direct recruitment quota vacancies to the Departmental Competitive / Qualifying quota and as such, the Department of Telecom, New Delhi through letter dated 25th July, 1995 directed all the Heads of Telecom Circles/telecom Districts, that the said letter dated 30th June, 1995 may be treated as cancelled. 13. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners were declared successful for the post of JTO on the basis of letter of the department dated 25-4-1995 but this letter was cancelled subsequently by the Chief General Manger, Eastern U. P. Telecom Circle, Lucknow through letter dated 3-8-1995. In paragraph 18 of the same it is stated that mere selection of a candidate for any post does not make him entitled for regular absorption against that post unless other conditions are fulfilled. In paragraph 24 of the same it is stated that the recruitment rules for JTO provides power of relaxation to the Central Government where it feels it is necessary or expedient to do so. Under this power it was decided to absorb qualified Phone Inspectors, Telecom Assistant, Wireless Operators, Auto Exchange Assistants against the vacancies of the direct recruitment quota in relaxation of the recruitment rules as a one-time measure. Under this power it was decided to absorb qualified Phone Inspectors, Telecom Assistant, Wireless Operators, Auto Exchange Assistants against the vacancies of the direct recruitment quota in relaxation of the recruitment rules as a one-time measure. In paragraph 25 of the same it is stated that the Department of Telecom, New Delhi through letter dated 30-6-1995 has relaxed the norms and directed the Unit to absorb the Departmental candidates who qualified against the 15% quota and could not be absorbed as Junior Telecom Officer for want of vacancies against the direct recruitment quota after diverting the direct recruitment quota vacancies to the Departmental Competitive/qualifying quota. Since it was a wrong order, which was issued by the Department on 30th June, 1995 inadvertently the Chief General Manager Eastern U. P. Circle cancelled the letter dated 25-4-1995 through a letter dated 30-8-1995 keeping in view the spirit of the departmental letter dated 25-7-1995. It is stated that the department had only corrected the mistake occurring inadvertently and hence no opportunity of hearing had to be given. In fact the department of Telecom, New Delhi through letter dated 24-11-1995 had admitted that a wrong had been done by issuing the order dated 30-6-1995. In paragraph 34 of the same it is stated that by letter dated 12-9-1995 the department withdrew the letter dated 21-3-1995 vide Annexure CA-9 to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 35 of the same it is stated that although petitioners were declared successful for the post of JTO in the examination held on 14/15th March, 1992 through letter dated 25- 4-1995 but they were declared successful against the vacancies outside the quota. The department realized its mistake and as such the letters dated 21-3-1995, 24-3-1995 and 30-6-1996 were cancelled. In paragraph 38 of the same it is stated that power of relaxation was not exercised by the competent authority in the manner in which it should have been exercised and hence which the Department of Telecom , New Delhi through its letter dated 25-7-1995 had restrained the diversion of quota from direct quota vacancies to departmental quota vacancies. In paragraph 46 of the same, it is stated that earlier the department of Telecom through its letter dated 30-6-1995 had allowed diversion of quota from direct to departmental quota. In paragraph 46 of the same, it is stated that earlier the department of Telecom through its letter dated 30-6-1995 had allowed diversion of quota from direct to departmental quota. Later on it was felt that the said letter was wrong keeping in view the fact that the diversion is not permissible and as such the department through its letter dated 25-7- 1995 had cancelled its letter dated 30-6-1995. Hence the result of the petitioners were cancelled. 14. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit in this case. 15. It is not necessary for us to go into all the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as in our opinion the writ petition can be allowed on the very first point namely that there is discrimination against the petitioners. It is not disputed that seventeen candidates were promoted to the post of JTO after getting relaxation as stated in paragraphs 10, 14 and 22 of the writ petition. The Tribunal has held that relaxation was not granted by the Central Government in accordance with Rule 7, but undisputedly relaxation was granted to the aforesaid seventeen candidates who were declared successful in the second phase. The petitioners, whose results were declared in the third phase, were entitled to similar treatment but they were denied the same. Thus the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be arbitrary. On the one hand it has stated that the Central Government has not granted any relaxation on the other hand it has not accepted the plea of discrimination between the petitioners and the seventeen candidates similarly situate who have been promoted as JTO. The relevant discussion of the Tribunals order on this point is in paragraph 16 of the writ petition where the Tribunal has only said that the appointments of the selected candidates is not under challenge. 16. It may be mentioned that the candidates who have been promoted as well as the petitioners both appeared in the March, 1992 examination and all of them were declared successful. However, only seventeen of these successful candidates have been promoted although their case is on the same footing as that of the petitioners. Thus there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. In our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal that no relaxation was granted by the Central Government is not correct. However, only seventeen of these successful candidates have been promoted although their case is on the same footing as that of the petitioners. Thus there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. In our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal that no relaxation was granted by the Central Government is not correct. In paragraph 13 of the Tribunals order it is mentioned that the department of Tele Communication, Government of India granted the relaxation. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the decision of the department of Tele Communication, Ministry of Communication is not the decision of the Central Government. We cannot agree. The department of Tele Communication is only a limb of the Central Government and hence the decision of the Department of Tele Communication has to be treated as the decision of the Central Government. 18. Thus there is clear discrimination against the petitioners. Hence we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 31-1-2000 and the impugned orders dated 25-7-1995 and 3-8-1995. We direct that the petitioners shall be promoted as JTO with effect from the date on which the seventeen similarly situate persons were promoted and they shall get all the consequential benefits. 19. The petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Petition allowed. .