Judgment :- P. K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. B. Ullasavelan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Mulaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. In spite of notice, the third respondent has not entered appearance. 2. The question relates to selection of Postman. The second respondent herein, who was the applicant before the first respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, was working as GDS Packer under the present petitioners. At the time of promotion, his case was not considered on the ground that he had exceeded the age of 50 years. According to the present petitioners, viz., the Union of India and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karur, since there was only one vacancy, such an order was passed declaring the post as ‘unreserved’ on the basis of length of service. It is stated in the affricative filed in support of the writ petition, ‘the conditions prescribed for selection of Postman under 25% seniority quota was as follows: Age : 50 years for “unreserved” Category 53 years for “OBC” Category 55 years for SC/ST – as on 7. 2004 Service Condition: 15 years of service as on 1. 2004 Educational Qualification VIII Std. Pass. The present second respondent, being aggrieved by his non-selection, has approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal has held that since the present second respondent belongs to SC Category, the upper age limit for promotion was 55 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is not correct in view of the General Instructions issued by the Government of India vide its Office Memorandum G.I., Dept. Of Per. Trg. O.M..No.36012/13/88-Estt. (SCT), dated 25. 1989 and O.M.No.36011/1/98-Estt. (Res.), dated 7. 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to paras. 2 and 3 of the above General Instructions, which are extracted hereunder: “2. It has not been decided that in cases of direct recruitment to vacancies in posts under the Central Government, the SC and ST candidates who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards along with candidates belonging to the other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies. It has not been decided that in cases of direct recruitment to vacancies in posts under the Central Government, the SC and ST candidates who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards along with candidates belonging to the other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies. The reserved vacancies will be filled up separately from amongst the eligible SC and ST candidates which will thus comprise SC and ST candidates who are lower in merit than the last candidate on the merit list but otherwise found suitable for appointment even by relaxed standards, if necessary. 3. All Ministries/Departments will immediately review the various Recruitment Rules/Examinations Rules to ensure that if any provisions contrary to the decision contained in previous paragraph exist in such rules, they are immediately suitably modified or deleted.” .4. Even assuming that such an instruction is ipso facto applicable even before the amendment of the statutory Rules or the Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, paragraph 2 of such instruction makes it clear that the instruction is relating to direct recruitment to vacancies in posts under the Central Government. In this connection, the Tribunal has observed: .“6. … we find from the Recruitment Rules filed before us that in column 9 against the cadre whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment shall apply in the case of promotions it is provides as ‘No’. Further it is seen from column 11 and 12 of the said Rules, 50% of the posts are to be filled by promotion and in the remaining 50%, 25% is from the EDAs on the basis of their seniority and 25% from EDAs on the basis of their merit in the Departmental Examination. The stipulation of passing the Departmental Examination for the seniority quota has been dropped by the amendment made in the rules vide Notification dated 30.1.1995. Therefore, for all purposes, 25% for EDAs (now GDS) whose selections are made on the basis of seniority has to be taken as promotion only and not direct recruitment….” .5. Though in the present case it cannot be strictly said to be a promotion through DPC., but it cannot also be said that it is a case of direct recruitment. Therefore, the instruction contained in para. No.2 may not be strictly applicable. Though in the present case it cannot be strictly said to be a promotion through DPC., but it cannot also be said that it is a case of direct recruitment. Therefore, the instruction contained in para. No.2 may not be strictly applicable. Even if there is an age restriction prescribed for direct recruitment, such an age restriction is not applicable to the case of promotion as found in the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in Column No.9 of the Rules circulated by the D.G., Department of Posts, dated 7. 1989, vide letter No.44-31/87-SPB-I. 6. Apart from the above, even as per the averments made in the affidavit, it appears that the upper age limit for those belonging to ‘unreserved’ category is 50, whereas, the upper age limit for OBC is 53 years and the upper age limit for SC/ST being 55 years as on 7. 2004. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that if the upper age limit is not applicable to OBC and other reserved categories, there may be other candidates, who are more seniors to the present second respondent. This question may not arise since in the impugned order herein, the Tribunal has only directed the respondents therein to convene Review DPC and consider the candidature of the applicant therein in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, obviously, at that stage, the candidature of all eligible candidates should be considered. For all these reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, WPHP No.741 of 2006 is closed.