Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order made in O.A.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai bench, dated 30.04.2009 and to quash the same. 2. Challenging the selection of the 2nd respondent for the post of Postman, the 1st respondent, who had put in more than 33 years of service as ED Packer (now GDS),CECRI S.O. at Karaikudi, and entitled for relaxation of upper age limit of 3 years or considering promotion to the post of Postman, filed O.A.No.85 of 2007 before the to Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench, to set aside the same and to direct the 1st respondent therein to promote him to the post of Postman with all service benefits. 3. The Tribunal, on Consideration for the facts and circumstances of the case and after going though the judgment rendered in O.A.No.1208 of 2004 dated 10. 2006 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ritesh R. Sah-vs- Dr. Y.L. Yamul ( 1996 (3) SCC 263 ), wherein it was held that the concession given in the form of age relaxation cannot take away the right of SC/ST respondents therein to held a review DPC to consider the case of the 1st respondent herein for promotion to the post of Postman along with the other candidates for the vacancy of the year 2006 in which the 2nd respondent has been selected overlooking the seniority of the 1st respondent, against which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contending that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the scope of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as the said Article envisages in the large interest for the administration that it is the employer, who is the best suited to decide the percentage of posts in the promotional cadre, which can be earmarked for different category of person. It is further submitted that in the present case, there is only one post earmarked by the employer for unreserved category with a prescription of eligibility criteria and the 1st respondent herein is not at all eligible as per the scheme of recruitment. It is further submitted that in the present case, there is only one post earmarked by the employer for unreserved category with a prescription of eligibility criteria and the 1st respondent herein is not at all eligible as per the scheme of recruitment. It is further contented that the erroneous findings of the Tribunal with regard to age relaxation to the 1st respondent who belongs to OBC category are unsustainable in the law and hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 6. We have once again heard the learned counsel on either side and gone through the materials. It is not in dispute that the post of Postman, earmarked for the unreserved category, by the Postmaster General, vide proceedings dated 09.01.2007 and communicated the same to the Kariakudi Division under Annual Director Recruitment Plan 2005, is a promotional Post. It is also not in dispute that though the 1st respondent was selected and appointed as on O.C. Candidate, subsequently, after implementation for the Mandal Communication Report, the caste of the 1st respondent has been categorized as OBC and to that effect, he has produced a certificate, which was accepted by the Department and in this promotional post, the question of fixation of age does not arise. Therefore, the entire action of the petitioner is illegal. 7. Even in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court considered the issue and after going though the Rules, it was observed that, 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 for promotions, it is provided as “No” and further, it is seen from column 11 and 12 of the said Rules, 50% for 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’. 8. Therefore, the age and educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment is not applicable for direct promotion. Hence, the petitioner fixed age limit of 53 years as on 01.07.2007 is not correct, and it is illegal and contrary to their own rules. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is senior to the selected candidate, who is the 2nd respondent herein. 8. Therefore, the age and educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment is not applicable for direct promotion. Hence, the petitioner fixed age limit of 53 years as on 01.07.2007 is not correct, and it is illegal and contrary to their own rules. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is senior to the selected candidate, who is the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the selection of the 2nd respondent and directing the DPC to reconsider the case of the 1st respondent for promotion along with the other candidates. 9. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, six weeks time is granted to the petitioner to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also brought to our notice that the judgment in W.P.No.631 of 2006 was implemented by the holding DPC Review Meeting and setting aside the selected candidate Pugazhendhi and the applicant was selected. No costs.