Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. This writ petition had been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to quash the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by the third respondent in O.A.No.863 of 2008 by dismissing the Original Application filed by the first respondent herein. 2. The case of the first respondent herein, who is the applicant before the Tribunal, is that he belongs to OBC community and joined the postal department on 1.5.1981 as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier, South Melayambakkam branch office under Kunnathur Sub Office and in the seniority list of Gramin Dak Sevaks, his name is shown at Sl.No.35. The Departmental Promotion Committee, which met on 31.5.2007 for promotion to the post of Postman under the seniority quota for the year 2005, though considered the name of the applicant along with other candidates, did not select the applicant on the ground that he is overaged under the unreserved category. 3. The first respondent filed an appeal dated 17.5.2008 to the Postmaster General, but the same was rejected. Challenging the said Order, the first respondent filed O.A.No.863 of 2008 before the third respondent-Tribunal and the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 6.11.2009, disposed of the said application, directing the petitioners to hold a review DPC to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the post of Postman along with other candidates for the vacancy of the year 2005 and pass appropriate orders within a prescribed period. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for the relief cited supra. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. As could be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 31.5.2007 for considering the promotion to the post of Postman for the year 2005. By that time, the first respondent crossed the age of 50 years and his junior K. Janakiraman was selected and appointed as Postman. The contention of the first respondent that he belongs to OBC and hence he is entitled for age relaxation of three years cannot be considered. It is an admitted fact that the vacancy is meant for unreserved category. When the first respondent is competing for the post under unreserved category, he cannot claim age relaxation. The contention of the first respondent that he belongs to OBC and hence he is entitled for age relaxation of three years cannot be considered. It is an admitted fact that the vacancy is meant for unreserved category. When the first respondent is competing for the post under unreserved category, he cannot claim age relaxation. However, if the vacancy is filled up in the year 2005, he is eligible for promotion since he is within the age of 50 years. 6. The DPC, after lapse of two years, met on 31.5.2007 for the vacancy, which arose in 2005 and rejected the case of the first respondent on the ground that he is overaged though he is within the age of 50 years in the year 2005, which is contrary to the judgment dated 15.10.2009 rendered by this Court in W.P.No.14852 of 2009. In such view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Two months time is granted to the petitioners to comply with the order of the Tribunal. However, there shall be no order as to costs.