BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against order dated May 3, 2006 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal)by which the said Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 filed by the respondent herein by directing the present appellants to consider the case of the respondent by absorbing him against Group-D post immediately in the light of the observation made in the body of the said order, ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ-application may be summed up thus : ( 3 ) IN the past, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the tribunal below thereby praying for absorbing him in the regular Group-D post after taking into consideration his service of more than eight years in casual vacancies. The said application was contested by the Union of India and ultimately, the Tribunal by the order dated august 20, 2003 disposed of the said application by directing the Union of India to consider the case of the respondent for regularisation against the available or future group-D vacancy in the same manner in which the cases of two casual workers, namely, Rekha kundu and Bablu Bagani were regularized. The tribunal further directed that till such consideration was made the status quo as regards the service of the respondent would continue. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Union of India has not challenged the said decision and the same has attained finality. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the direction given by the tribunal as mentioned above, the writ-petitioners herein asked the respondent to appear at the interview and by an order dated february 20, 2004 informed the respondent that he was found to be "not suitable", without however, disclosing any particular reason why he was not suitable, ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the respondent preferred another application under Section 19 of the Act before the Tribunal below thereby giving rise to O. A. No. 693/2004 praying for direction upon the present writ-petitioners for absorbing him in the Group-D post. ( 6 ) THE application was contested by the union of India and according to it, the respondent was found to be "not suitable", and as such, he was appointed and that the two other employees, namely, Rekha Kundu and Bablu bagani were appointed as direct recruit after being successful in the interview and therefore, their cases cannot be equated with the case of the respondent. ( 7 ) THE learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent was justified and it was a fit case for giving relief to the respondent. The Tribunal, thus, allowed the application by directing the writ-petitioners before us to consider the case by absorbing the respondent in Group-D post immediately. ( 8 ) BEING dissatisfied, the Union of India has come up with the present writ-application challenging the decision of the Tribunal below. ( 9 ) MR. Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioners has made two fold submission before this Court ( 10 ) FIRST, he was contended that undisputedly, the respondent being overaged on the date of interview, his client did not commit any illegality in rejecting his claim. Mr. Bhattacharya frankly conceded that although no reason was given in the order communicating the respondent about his failure, the real reason was that he had exceeded the age-limit prescribed for recruitment of group-D staff. Such plea was, however, not taken in the Tribunal below and in the order impugned before the Tribunal the writ-petitioners simply described the respondent as not suitable. ( 11 ) SECONDLY, Mr. Bhattacharya contends that it is now settled by the Supreme Court that even if a person works for a long time in an unauthorized manner, such fact cannot be a ground for absorbing him in the regular vacancy. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the respondent before us cannot take advantage of the period he worked in casual vacancy and as such, his client did not commit any illegality in not taking into consideration his past service mr. Bhattacharya contends that the other two employees, namely, Rekha Kundu and Bablu bagani were appointed as they were successful in the interview after having fulfilled the requisite qualifications and as such, the case of the respondent cannot be compared with the cases of those two employees. Bhattacharya contends that the other two employees, namely, Rekha Kundu and Bablu bagani were appointed as they were successful in the interview after having fulfilled the requisite qualifications and as such, the case of the respondent cannot be compared with the cases of those two employees. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the tribunal. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, the first question that falls for determination in this Writ-application is whether the writ-petitioners were justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent on the ground that he was over-aged. ( 13 ) THERE is no dispute that according to the Rules framed by the writ-petitioners, a candidate for the post in question should be within the age-limit of 18-25 years and that at the time of appearing at the interview, pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent exceeded that age-limit. It, however, appears from the office memo dated june 7, 1988 laying down guidelines in the matter of recruitment of casual workers on daily basis, it is specifically provided that regularization of the services of the casual workers should conform to the instruction issued by the department in this regard and the casual workers may be given relaxation in the upper age limit only if, at the time of initial recruitment as the casual worker, he had not exceeded the upper age-limit for the relevant post. It is an admitted fact that at the time of recruitment of the respondent in the year 1992 in the casual vacancy, he was within the age limit of 18-25 years and thus, the writ-petitioners violated their own guidelines by rejecting the candidature of the respondent on the sole ground that he was over-aged as disclosed for the first time in this writ-application although in the Tribunal he was merely described as "not suitable". Therefore the order impungned in the application before the Tribunal should be set aside on the ground alone. Since, apart from the aforesaid ground of the alleged over-age, no other reason has been assigned in this writ application, it should be presumed that the writ petitioners did not find any other deficiency in the respondent, ( 14 ) THE other point advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya that the status of the respondent was different from the other two employees, namely, Rekha Kundu and Bablu Bagahl, in our view, cannot be entertained at this stage. Bhattacharya that the status of the respondent was different from the other two employees, namely, Rekha Kundu and Bablu Bagahl, in our view, cannot be entertained at this stage. We have already pointed out that in the earlier application filed before the Tribunal, it directed the writ-petitioners to consider the case of absorption of the respondent in the same manner those two employees were dealt with after coming to definite conclusion that the respondent was similarly placed with those two employees. The Union of India did not challenge the said decision of the Tribunal and as such, the same has attained finality and is binding upon it. In a subsequent application filed before the Tribunal by the respondent for enforcing the earlier order, the Union of India could not legitimately complain that the earlier decision of the Tribunal was wrong as the same had attained finality and was binding. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that the cases of those two employees were different from that of the respondent is not tenable in the eye of law. ( 15 ) AS regards of the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya that a casual worker has no right to be absorbed in a regular vacancy, we do not dispute the said proposition for a moment; But in the case before us, such question having already been decided in the earlier proceedings before the Tribunal and the Tribunal having directed the writ-petitioners to treat the respondent in the same manner with those two employees in the matter of selection in the substantive post, the writ-petitioners cannot disobey, such direction. Whether the respondent and those two other employees stood in the same footing or not being a question of fact and the decision on such question having, already attained finality in the earlier proceedings, there is no scope of reopening the said finding of fact in a subsequent proceedings Moreover, in the case before us, the respondent was not illegally appointed in the casual vacancy and it is not his case that such illegal appointment should be regularized. In the instruction given by the writ-petitioners, there being specific provision for relaxation of age-limit at the time of appointment in, the substantive post and the respondent having satisfied such condition the writ-petitioners illegally rejected the claim of the respondent. ( 16 ) WE, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. In the instruction given by the writ-petitioners, there being specific provision for relaxation of age-limit at the time of appointment in, the substantive post and the respondent having satisfied such condition the writ-petitioners illegally rejected the claim of the respondent. ( 16 ) WE, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. This writ-application is thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed accordingly. No costs. ( 17 ) I agree.