ORDER By Court.-Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The case of the petitioner as delineated in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.11.2007 in paragraph 2 is as under: 2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Extra Departmental Mail Man "(EDMM) in the year 1997. Thereafter, the applicant was granted promotion as Mail Man (Group-D post) on the recommendation of DPC. He joined the post on 13.2.2002 in temporary capacity. He was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 22.3.2004 "(Annexure-A/3), He was permitted to appear in the departmental examination for promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant to be held on 23.5.2004. The grievance of the applicant is that by a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 30.7.2004 his appointment in the post of Mail Man has been cancelled merely on the ground that his appointment was irregular...... ..." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner. Union of India, drew our attention towards departmental letter No. 60-29/98-SPB-I(Pt) dated 14th July, 2001 which reads as under:- “….. 2...... 3.....You are therefore, requested to immediately carry out a review in your Circle and submit a report to the Directorate covering the requirement of all cadres in your Circle division-wise so as to reach us by 31st July, 2001 in the enclosed proforma. As the above information has to be submitted to the Screening Committee, which will be chaired by the Secretary (Posts), you must certify accuracy of the information, while submitting the same. Needless to say, recruitment process for the year 2001 should commence only after obtaining the approval of Screening Committee. It may be further clarified that the above instructions will apply only to the vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment and it will not apply to recruitment by promotion." 4. According to the argument of the learned counsel for the Union of India, since the appointment of the respondents was not approved by the Screening Committee their services were terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that appointment of the respondents was after recommendation by the D.P.C. and an order of confirmation has come in place. Once the order of confirmation on the post, in which the respondents were, comes, then subsequently they only get a promotion and for that promotion the aforesaid letter has no application, as stated in the order itself. Once the order of confirmation on the post, in which the respondents were, comes, then subsequently they only get a promotion and for that promotion the aforesaid letter has no application, as stated in the order itself. Therefore, on account of non-approval by the Screening Committee, it cannot be said that the services of the respondents would liable to be discontinued by termination. 6. In our considered opinion, the petitioner had proceeded on the wrong premises because once an employee is appointed and confirmed on a post then he does not remain a temporary employee and he acquires a substantive right and that substantive right cannot be taken away only on the ground stated in a letter which only applies in case of fresh appointment. In that view of the matter, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from no illegality. These petitions are meritless; hence dismissed.