Judgment :- V.S.SIRPURKAR, J. These writ petitions are filed on behalf of the Central Government challenging the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the Original Applications filed by the first respondent in both the writ petitions. 2. The Tribunal had disposed of the two Original Applications, they being O.A.Nos.929/98 and 930/98 having been filed by M.Kaleeswaran and U.Muthuraj respectively. In their applications, the Original Applicants who are the first respondent in W.P. Nos.8706 and 8704 of 2000 respectively had sought the relief of a direction to the respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein to consider the applicants for Group 'D' posts in Mail Motor Service, Madurai as per the rules and also to restrain the respondents therein from terminating the employment of the applicants in Mail Motor Service, Madurai. 3. By way of short history, it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the Original Applicants were included in the dovetailed list which was maintained by Madurai Postal Division. At that time, the Mail Motor Service, Madurai required the services of two persons for the posts of Sweeper and Water Carrier and therefore, its manager wrote to the Madurai Postal Division for sending the names for being appointed in these posts. Accordingly, the Madurai Postal Division sent the names of eight willing persons out of that dovetailed list. Undoubtedly, the Original Applicants were among those willing persons besides six others. These two employees were at Serial Nos.37 and 39 respectively, but it appears that others probably were not willing to go to the service of Mail Motor Service and chose to remain back. These two applicants were thereafter selected on 2.12.1995 and 12.4.1996 respectively. Kaleeswaran was engaged as a Water Carrier from 2.12.1995 while Muthuraj was engaged as a Sweeper from 12.4.1996. These appointments were only for three months from the date of selection and appointment, however, it so happened that the applicants were not terminated and were continued in the same Mail Motor Service in the same capacity right up to October 1998. It is at that time that two posts became available in Group 'D' and therefore, these applicants claimed that they should be considered for those posts. In their Original Applications also, they have sought for the direction that they should be considered for those posts. It is at that time that two posts became available in Group 'D' and therefore, these applicants claimed that they should be considered for those posts. In their Original Applications also, they have sought for the direction that they should be considered for those posts. The Department however opposed this on the ground that the applicants were not originally recruited in Mail Motor Service and they were engaged earlier by the Postal Division as outsiders and it was because they were in the dovetailed list that their names were sent to the Mail Motor Service when a communication in that behalf was made to the Madurai Postal Division. In the further stand taken, the Department insisted that the two posts which were to be filled in could be so filled in only from amongst the seniormost Extra Departmental Agents as there were number of Extra Departmental Agents who were senior to these two persons in Madurai Postal Division. It was again pointed out that they were not to be terminated as a result of appointment of somebody from the Extra Departmental Agents, but would be sent back to their original Unit where they would get employment, though in different capacity. The Department also relied upon the undertakings given by the applicants to the effect that they would not claim regular employment in Mail Motor Service on the basis of their appointments referred above. 4. By way of rejoinder, the applicants pointed out that even after three months of service that they had put in, they were continued and they were still continuing till the Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal. They pointed out that by their continuous working, the Department had treated them to be Casual Labourers as they had put in more than 240 days of service during the period that they worked in the Department. In fact, their contention was that they were continuously working without any break. They therefore pointed out that they being Casual Labourers, had better right over the Group 'D' posts than the Extra Departmental Agents of Madurai Postal Division. 5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the original selection did not clothe the applicants with any right, the fact of the matter was that the applicants had continued to work uninterruptedly after that initial period of three months for which they were appointed. 5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the original selection did not clothe the applicants with any right, the fact of the matter was that the applicants had continued to work uninterruptedly after that initial period of three months for which they were appointed. The Tribunal also noted that in effect, the Mail Motor Service failed to send back the applicants to their original department, i.e. Madurai Postal Division and on the top of it, continued them uninterruptedly for a period of about three years i.e. right up to October 1998. The Tribunal also pointed out that even if these applicants were treated as contingent staff, they could not have been straightaway sent in that capacity of theirs to their original department i.e. Madurai Postal Division. The Tribunal therefore considered the following factors in favour of the applicants: 1. The selection of the applicants by the Mail Motor Service vide letters dated 5.12.1995 and 10.4.1996. 2. The absence of the practice of deputation of contingent and casual staff from one unit to another 3. That the applicants were continuously working with the Mail Motor Service since 2.12.1995 and 12.4.1996 respectively. On that basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicants had become the contingent staff and casual employees of the Mail Motor Service. The Tribunal also scoffed at the contention raised by the Department that the applicants were the juniormost persons in the dovetailed list. It pointed out that amongst the eight candidates who were sent for selection, the applicants were the seniormost. The Tribunal then relied upon the amended rules vide Notification No.66-82/87/SPB-1 dated 24.2.1989. These amendments were called Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Group 'D' posts) Recruitment (Amendment Rules 1989). It found that there were two categories of Group 'D' posts, they being test category and non-test category and that the posts which were now available in Group 'D' were of non-test category. The Tribunal then pointed that the amendment ran as under: "By means of an interview from amongst the categories specified and in the order indicated below - Recruitment from the next category is to be made only when no qualified person is available in the higher category. (i). Extra Departmental Agents of the Recruiting Division or unit in which vacancies are announced. (ii). Casual labourers (full time and part time) of the Recruiting Division or Unit. (iii). (i). Extra Departmental Agents of the Recruiting Division or unit in which vacancies are announced. (ii). Casual labourers (full time and part time) of the Recruiting Division or Unit. (iii). Extra Departmental agents of the neighbouring Division or Unit. Explanation: For the Postal Division, the neighbouring division will be the Railway Mail Service Division and vice-versa" 6. On that basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that under the circumstances, if the applicants could be viewed as Casual Labourers, then they would certainly have a better right than the Extra Departmental Agents of the neighbouring Division like Madurai Postal Division since Madurai Postal Division was a neighbouring division for Mail Motor Service. In that view, the Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the Central Government to consider the cases of the applicants for the appointment to the two Group 'D' posts which had become available. This decision has been in challenge before us at the instance of the Central Government. 7. Mr.Vaithiyalingam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel very vehemently attacks the order of the Tribunal and contends that these two applicants were at Serial Nos.37 and 39 in their original dovetailed list maintained by Madurai Postal Division. He points out that their initial appointment was only for three months and it could not have created any right in them since it was only a contingent appointment. According to the learned counsel, the persons who were senior to these applicants in the dovetailed list and who had become Extra Departmental Agents because of that had the better right to be appointed owing to their seniority. In this behalf, he points out that though offers were given to these applicants to go back as Extra Departmental Agents (Gramin Dak Sevaks) they had declined to go. Learned counsel therefore says that they cannot march over their seniors and steal the seniority over and above those persons who had become the Gramin Dak Sevaks earlier. For this, learned counsel sought to rely on number of notifications and more particularly, a notification dated 27.6.2003, from which it is clear that though the offer was made to Kaleeswaran and Muthuraj, they had declined to join the Gramin Dak Sevak posts. It appears from this communication that the others chose to become the GDS officials and as such they were seniors to the applicants. 8. It appears from this communication that the others chose to become the GDS officials and as such they were seniors to the applicants. 8. As against this, Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in both the writ petitions drew our attention to a letter No.REP/84-1/89 dated 9.6.1989. Learned counsel points out that by that letter, the contingent paid staff amongst others like Mazdoor Casual Labourer, daily wager, daily rated Mazdoor were to be treated as Casual Labourers, provided they were working in RMS offices or in administrative offices or in PSDs / Mail Motor Service under different capacities. Learned counsel points out further that from this letter, it is clear that only the substitutes were not to be given the status of the Casual Labourers. He further points out that for the entry into the Group 'D' posts, the substitutes were to be considered only when the Casual Labourers were not available. Learned counsel points out that by this letter it was clear that even if the applicants were initially employed as the contingent paid staff, they ultimately got the status of Casual Labourers because of their continuous working in that post even after they had completed the initial period of three months for which they were appointed. Learned counsel therefore carries his argument further and suggests that the Tribunal had therefore correctly relied upon amended Recruitment Rules of 1989 and had found as a matter of fact that Extra Departmental Agents were not available in the Mail Motor Service. 9. Learned counsel points out and this is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government that at that time, Extra Departmental Agents were not available in Mail Motor Service. They were available only in Madurai Postal Division, which would be a neighbouring division owing to the explanation added in these rules. We have deliberately quoted the rules to suggest and to buttress that insofar as Mail Motor Service was concerned, it could not have the Extra Departmental Agents from the neighbouring service like Madurai Postal Division. If the first category was not available, then obviously, the choice had to fall on the second category i.e., Casual Labourers (full time and part-time) of the Recruiting Division or Unit. If the first category was not available, then obviously, the choice had to fall on the second category i.e., Casual Labourers (full time and part-time) of the Recruiting Division or Unit. In this case, in the Recruiting Unit which is the Mail Motor Service, owing to the letter dated 9.6.1989 to which learned counsel Mr.Radhakrishnan referred to, the applicants were to be treated as Casual Labourers. If that was so, then obviously, they were undoubtedly the best persons and the only persons probably to be considered for the Group 'D' posts which came in Mail Motor Service only. 10. We do not find anything wrong with this reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to show that the letter dated 9.6.1989 was in any way varied later on or that the applicants who were working as contingent staff could not be given the status of Casual Labourers. As it is, we find that right from 1996 till today, they are still working as Casual Labourers. Under such circumstances, now to deny them that status as Casual Labourers would be a travesty. The Tribunal has correctly decided the question and we therefore affirm the order of the Tribunal. 11. The writ petition has no merits. It is dismissed. Under the circumstances, we order costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) against the Central Government in favour of the first respondent in both the writ petitions. WMPs 12826 and 12829 of 2000 are closed.