Judgment :- D. Hariparanthaman, J. 1. The second respondent was employed in the school run by the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (in short CVRDE) at Avadi, Chennai from 26.08.1985 to 26.07.1995 as Clerk and thereafter from 27.07.1995 to 31.08.2001 as Librarian. He lost his employment when the school was closed from 01.09.2001. 2. The second respondent and some other employees of the school approached the first respondent’ Central Administrative Tribunal (shortly the Tribunal) by filing a batch of Original Applications in O.A.Nos.440 to 445, 436 and 538 of 2001 questioning the closure of the school. The Tribunal disposed those Original Applications by a common order dated 26.09.2001 holding that the closure was bonafide. However, the Tribunal recorded the statement of the Department that the Department is preferred to recommend the names of the employees who lost employment due to the closure of the school whenever they applied for any job. The said statement is recorded by the Tribunal in the following words: "In view of the above, we are of the view that we cannot give a direction as prayed for. At the same time, we make it clear that an abrupt closure of the school is a heavy loss to all the applicants. It is only appropriate on the part of the respondents to see that they are placed in some of the employment. For the said purpose, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even now they are prepared to recommend the names of the applicants whenever the applicants apply for any job and whatever assistance they can provide will be provided.........." 3. However, not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the second respondent and other employees approached this Court by filing a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.20179 to 20182, 20187 to 20190 and 20549 to 20556 of 2003. Those writ petitions were disposed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13.03.2003 with the following directions: "3. Mr. However, not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the second respondent and other employees approached this Court by filing a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.20179 to 20182, 20187 to 20190 and 20549 to 20556 of 2003. Those writ petitions were disposed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13.03.2003 with the following directions: "3. Mr. Velusamy, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has also fairly stated that when once the petitioners have been declared to be government servants by the tribunal under the order impugned, it will be open for the petitioners to make their representations invoking the above said rules to the Department of Personnel and Training and that as and when such representations are made, the same would be considered in accordance with the said rules and the schemes framed there under. 4. Having regard to the above said stand of the parties as represented before us, we hereby direct that the petitioners shall make their representations to the Department of Personnel and Training within two weeks from today and on such representations being presented, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with the above said rules as well as the schemes framed there under within eight weeks thereafter. These writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs". 4. Based on the order of this Court representations were made and those representations were rejected by the first petitioner in the order dated 13.02.2004 on the ground that the employees of the school who lost employment due to closure could not claim relief under CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, as they are not Government servants. Such a stand of the first petitioner, according to the second respondent, is not tenable in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2003 recording the statement of the learned counsel for the Central Government. 5. The second respondent and one Smt. Saroja filed Original Applications in O.A.Nos.854 and 855 of 2002 before the Tribunal praying for a direction against the first petitioner to include them under the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules 1990 and to consider them for alternative employment on the basis of their position in the surplus pool. The said Original Applications were allowed and against which, Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. The said Original Applications were allowed and against which, Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 27558 and 27559 of 2004 were preferred and the same were disposed by this Court by a common order dated 04.04.2005. The order passed in those writ petitions is as follows: "The Tribunal only directed inclusion of names of the contesting respondent in each writ petition in the surplus pool and given them the benefit of the above referred to rules and employment. The order of the Tribunal challenged in each writ petition shall be given effect to subject to the result in S.L.P.Nos.903 to 918 of 2004, pending as on date on the file of the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.854 and 855 of 2004 shall be implemented on or before 15. 2005. It is needless to state that continuance of the names of the contesting respondents under the surplus pool and give them employment would necessarily depend upon the order to be passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.903 to 918 of 2004". 6. In those circumstances, the third petitioner issued an advertisement in the Employment News calling for applications to fill up the post of Senior Technical Assistant -A (Library Science). The last date for submitting the applications was 09.01.2004. The second respondent submitted his application on 212. 2003. As per the advertisement, the qualification prescribed is Degree in Science with Diploma in Library Science / B.Lis. Further, the age limit prescribed for the said post is 28 years. 7. In these circumstances, the second respondent filed Original Application in O.A.No.69 of 2004 before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the writ petitioners to select him for appointment to the post of Senior Technical Assistant - A (Library Science) on the basis of his past service in the school run by the CVRDE from 26.08.1985 to 31.08.2001 as per the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. 8. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application in O.A.No.69 of 2004 by an order dated 10.02.2005 and issued the following directions as found in paragraph No.15 of the order: “15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of the above relief. 8. The Tribunal allowed the said Original Application in O.A.No.69 of 2004 by an order dated 10.02.2005 and issued the following directions as found in paragraph No.15 of the order: “15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of the above relief. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the directions given by this Tribunal and the Honble High Court of Madras (supra) for selection to the post of Senior Technical Assistant "A" (Library Science) under the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 and consider his appointment on the basis of the past service rendered by him in the school run by the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment from 28. 1985 to 38. 2001". 9. The present writ petition is filed against the said order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.69 of 2004. 10. The main plea of the writ petitioners is that the second respondent is not a Government servant and that therefore, the CCS (Redeployment and Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, is not applicable. 11. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be rejected in view of the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.P.Nos.20179 to 20182, 20187 to 20190 and 20549 to 20556 of 2003 dated 13.03.2003 and another order of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.P.Nos.27558 and 27559 of 2004 dated 04.04.2005 and the relevant portions of those orders were already extracted above, where there is a clear direction to apply CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 to the employees of school run by CVRDE including the second respondent. 12. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners have approached the Apex Court against the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2003 in S.L.P.Nos.903 to 918 of 2004, in which, the Apex Court by an order dated 10.01.2005 directed issuance of notice only. This was noted by the later Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 04.04.2005 and thereafter, issued a direction to the writ petitioners to include the second respondent in the surplus pool. 13. This was noted by the later Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 04.04.2005 and thereafter, issued a direction to the writ petitioners to include the second respondent in the surplus pool. 13. The other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent does not possess Degree in Science and therefore, he is not eligible for the relevant post also has to be rejected in view of Rule 4(2)(iii) of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 and the same is extracted here-under: "(iii) The surplus staff shall not be ineligible for appointment in the recipient organization on the ground that they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the posts to which they are redeployed by the Cell except in cases where certain minimum technical qualifications are prescribed for a particular post" 14. The last submission of the writ petitioners is that the second respondent is aged 38 years while the upper age limit as per the Rules is 28 for the post. This argument also deserves to be rejected in view of Rule 7 of the CCS (Redeployment and Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, which is extracted here-under: "7. Age-limit.- The upper age limit shall not apply in the case of a surplus employee appointed under these rules." 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the writ petitioners are directed to consider the second respondent for appointment to the post of Senior Technical Assistant -A (Library Science) under the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, we make it clear that his appointment is subject to the result of the case i.e. S.L.P. pending in the Apex Court. 16. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.