Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.04.2009 in O.A.No710 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioner to hold a review DPC for selection to the vacancy of the year 2005 in the postman cadre and consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the said post. 2. It is the case of the first respondent that he belongs to OBC category and he joined as ED Packer on 01.09.1973 at Marine Fisheries Sub Office and he is the seniormost GDS working in the first respondent division. According to him, he has put in 34 years of service as Gramin Dak Sevak and as such, he is eligible for appointment to the post of postman and he was at SI.No.129 in the seniority list. The maximum age limit for an OBC candidate for consideration to the post of Postman is 53 years. According to the first respondent, when a vacancy arose in the year 2005, he was well within the age limit prescribed for OBC candidates. But one S. Ramalakshmi, GDS BPM, Gudalur, who was shown at S.No.189 in the seniority list, was appointment to the said post and as she was not willing, another junior person, the second respondent herein, who was at S.No.190, was appointed to the post of Postman by order dated 16.08.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed the original application seeking a direction to the petitioner to appoint him as postman with all service benefits. 3. It was contended before the Tribunal that the vacancy for the year 2005 to the post of Postman on seniority basis was an unreserved one and there is no bar for a candidate who belonged to reserved category to claim an unreserved post. It was also contended that the action of the petitioner in appointing a junior would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, wherein it was stated that the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, Communicated the allotment of vacancies for filling up of vacant posts on proportionate basis in respect of Postman cadre as approved by the Screening Committee under Annual Direct Recruitment Plan for the year 2005 vide letter dated 26.12.2006 and the approved vacancies were filled up by constituting DPC. It was also stated that one vacancy of Postman cadre for the year 2005 was approved by Screening Committee for making recruitment and as per reservation orders, the said vacancy was treated unreserved. It was further stated that one S. Ramalakshmi, Senior GDS, was selected against said vacancy and upon her refusal, the next senior GDS, the second respondent, who belongs to unreserved category was selected against the said vacancy. It was also stated that since the first respondent was more than 50 years of age as on 01.07.2007, he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Postman which is earmarked for unreserved category and he would have been considered only if the vacancy was reserved for OBC category. 5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments relied upon by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the first respondent, who belongs to OBC category, was entitled for age relaxation up to 53 years and directed the petitioner to hold a review DPC for selection to the vacancy for the year 2005 in the postman cadre and consider his case for promotion to the said post within a period of two months. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Though the second respondent was served, there is no representation. 7. It is found that Rule 3 of Postman Recruitment Rules, 1989, contemplates the method of recruitment, age-limit and qualifications etc. According to Column 7 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules, the age limit for direct recruits between 18 and 25 years may be relaxable up to 35 years and the ED agents who have been recruited on or before 16.11.1982 shall be eligible if they are within 42 years (47 years for SC/ST) of age and those appointed after 16.11.1982, shall be eligible if they are within 35 years (40 years for SC/ST) of age and have put in three years of satisfactory service. 8. It is mainly contended by the petitioner that the post of Postman is not a promotion post from GDS. If persons, who are working as GDS, want to appear for the recruitment to the post of Postman, they have to resign and apply for appointment to the post of Postman. 8. It is mainly contended by the petitioner that the post of Postman is not a promotion post from GDS. If persons, who are working as GDS, want to appear for the recruitment to the post of Postman, they have to resign and apply for appointment to the post of Postman. Therefore, it was nothing but direct recruitment and as such Rule 3 read with Clause 7 of the Schedule annexed to the Postman Recruitment Rules, 1989, are applicable. Though the first respondent belonged to OBC and entitled for age relaxation, he has to compete with all others in the unreserved category. The rule of relaxation is not applicable to the said vacancy as it was earmarked for general category. The age prescribed is 50 years as per the instructions. Therefore, the first respondent, who belongs to OBC, cannot claim promotion to the said post. In fact, it was not promotion and it was in the nature of fresh appointment. This is clear from the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 9. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.