ORDER Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the Orders dated 27.08.1997 in O.A. No. 932 of 1994, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal declared the respondents as having been properly selected for Category-D posts. The facts in brief are that the Department of Telecommunication (for brevity, "the Department") has banned engagement of part time casual labourers through Orders dated 14.08.1984 and that of full time casual labourers through Orders dated 30.03.1985, giving exemption to certain project works, such as Railway Electrification Projects, Telecom and Coaxial Cable Projects etc. Later, even by removing these exemptions, a total ban was imposed on fresh engagement of casual labourers through Orders dated 22.06.1988. In course of time, the Department introduced a scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, through its proceedings dated 07.11.1989, according to which, vacancies in Group-D cadre in various offices of the Department would be exclusively filled up by regularisation of casual labourers, but not by any outsiders. Through Proceedings dt. 17.12.1990, it was clarified that part time labourers were not eligible for grant of temporary status under the above scheme. 2. It is further stated that since 1985 the Department had gone on expanding Telegraph offices, for which the need of fresh man power was felt. Though there was a ban on recruitment, some of the Telegraph units engaged part time casual labourers in the vacant Group-D posts. Thus came into existence the appointments of the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, effected by the Superintendent of Telegraphs, Nellore Division, (for short, "the Recruiting Authority"), on different dates beginning on 09.10.1986. Having come to know of the ad hoc recruitment in various units of the Department, the Director, (Telegraph Traffic), issued a Letter dated 29.04.1994, communicating the decision of Regional Joint Consultative Machinery, that the services of those persons, who were engaged post-ban should be dispensed with by the end of six months' period from the date of their engagement. It was further communicated that fresh batch of employees could be appointed through contract. In fact, this decision on the part of the Department was challenged by the respondents by filing O.A. No. 982 of 1994 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (the Tribunal). 3. It was further communicated that fresh batch of employees could be appointed through contract. In fact, this decision on the part of the Department was challenged by the respondents by filing O.A. No. 982 of 1994 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (the Tribunal). 3. While the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal, the Recruiting Authority, through his Letter dated 13.09.1994, called for recruitment of Group-D posts from among the existing casual labourers, said to have been inducted subsequent to the ban, which category includes the respondents as well. This process is stated to be in violation of the departmental restrictions placed on recruitment. Since the respondents, along with others, had responded to the notification and participated in the selection process, they were appointed to the group-D posts through Proceedings dated 27.01.1995. In fact, the respondents were also given posting orders by the said recruiting authority through letter dated 02.02.1995. 4. Consequent upon the aforementioned appointments of the respondents, the first petitioner received complaints about the irregularities committed by the Recruiting Authority, which resulted in an enquiry into the issue. Later on completion of a detailed investigation, the recruitment was nullified and the appointments were cancelled by the Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom, Hyderabad through Proceedings dated 16.05.1997, which were duly communicated to the respondents on 13.06.1997. 5. Since the termination took place pending the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, after taking duly into account all the subsequent developments, eventually the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowed O.A. No. 982 of 1994 through its Order dated 27.08.1997. Assailing the said Orders, the present Writ Petition has come to be filed by the petitioner, the Telecom Department. 6. Laying a strong challenge against the Order dated 27.08.1997 passed by the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the Central Government has contended that the very recruitment of the respondents was against the regulations of the department, as well as the ban that was imposed in 1988. Though the recruitment was duly cancelled by the Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom Office, through his Order dated 16.05.1997, after giving an opportunity to the respondents, and though a disciplinary action was taken against the Recruiting Authority, the Superintendent (TT), Nellore, who conducted the recruitment process, the Tribunal has ignored the subsequent developments and simply held that the appointments were regular. 7. 7. It is further contended that repeatedly the Courts have held that appointment of part time or full time labourers de hors the rules is per se illegal, and those appointees are not eligible for any consideration, leave alone regularisation. In the face of the policy of the Department, as spelt out in its Letter No. 269-10/89-STN, dated 07.11.1989, until the existing casual labourers were recruited in vacancies of Group-D cadres, there could not have been any fresh appointments. Accordingly, the orders of the Tribunal could not be sustained. Ipso facto, the direction of the Tribunal to the Department that the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein should be treated as properly selected candidates for test category of Group-D, it is contended, could not be sustained. Since the order of the Tribunal is in clear violation of established statutory position, as well as binding judicial dicta of this Court and the Supreme Court, there is, apart from perversity of findings, an error apparent on the face of the record, calling for intervention by this Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the Department itself has admitted that even after the alleged ban, the Department went on engaging fresh casual labourers, perhaps owing to the expansion of its Telegraph offices. It is evident that only under the said felt need to have its existing work force augmented, different units of the Department have gone on to engage fresh candidates as full time and part time casual labourers. The alleged intra-departmental communication dated 29.04.1994 directing the units not to engage any fresh casual labourers beyond six months at a time and only to renew their contracts half early with breaks is nothing but an unfair trade practice, more particularly when the work is perennial in nature. It is further contended that the admission on the part of the Department that, in view of its expanding offices, the Department recruited fresh personnel would clearly show that the ban was never imposed or in the alternative it had never been acted upon. 9. Focusing on the Order of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it has taken into account all the aspects of the matter. Basing on the very conduct of the Department, the Tribunal has affirmed that the regular appointment of the respondents is unassailable. 9. Focusing on the Order of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it has taken into account all the aspects of the matter. Basing on the very conduct of the Department, the Tribunal has affirmed that the regular appointment of the respondents is unassailable. Thus, having recruited the respondents duly, the appellant (sic. petitioner) Department is estopped from caviling about the said appointments citing the excuse of ban, which has not been acted upon in the first place. Even on the principle of legitimate expectation, it is submitted, the respondents are entitled to have their services regularized, inasmuch as, though without conceding on this aspect, any alleged irregularity in the appointment process was not at their instance. Having recruited and having allowed the respondents to work for a considerable length of time, the appellant (sic. petitioner), being a model employer, could not throw them out on unsustainable and flimsy excuses. 10. Heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, apart from perusing the record. 11. A perusal of the record would show that the respondents herein, in the face of ban or otherwise, were recruited into the fold of the Department in or about 1987 and have continued throughout the course of proceedings in O.A. No. 982 of 1994 before the Tribunal and have still been continuing during the course of the present Proceedings, which were initiated in 2000. There does not seem to have been any interim direction by this Court at the time of admitting the matter in 2000 interdicting the appointment of the respondents or suspending the operation of the order of the Tribunal. As such, the respondents have been continuing in employment since 1987 and have put in about 26 years of service to this day. They may have been now left with a few more years of service. Being conscious of the fact that mere length of service, especially under the cover of judicial proceedings, would not confer legitimacy on the appointment, if it is otherwise not in accordance with law, we propose to examine the issue. 12. The stand of the petitioner, in the first place, suffers from contradictions, and accordingly the submissions as to the ban crumble under their own weight. 12. The stand of the petitioner, in the first place, suffers from contradictions, and accordingly the submissions as to the ban crumble under their own weight. In one breath, it was stated that there was an absolute ban on engagement of part time and full time casual labourers, in view of the decision taken by the Department in 1988. In another breath, it was stated by the petitioner that in view of expansion of its offices, certain directions were given through Letter dated 29.04.1994 that there could be engagement of casual labourers but they should not be allowed to work in the Petitioner's units beyond six months at any given point of time and that the services could be renewed with breaks there afterwards. Thus, the alleged ban has not been implemented in its full vigour. On the other hand, the Department itself has admitted that there was shortage of personnel and it was compelled to recruit more casual labourers. Given the perennial nature of the work, those persons that have been recruited subsequently were assigned work by giving deliberate and artificial breaks, which borders on unfair labour practice. 13. Though much stress has been laid on the fact that since the recruitment of the respondents was illegal, the officer concerned, who was instrumental in recruiting them, was departmentally punished, it would not be an answer to the predicament of the respondents. Without any effort, mala fide or otherwise, on the part of the respondents, they were asked to participate on the selection process based on the notification issued by a competent authority and subsequently there was a selection. Even referring to the alleged scheme put in place by the Department through its Order dated 07.08.1996, it is evident that the vacancies in Group-D cadre must be filled up by the then existing full time or part time casual labourers. The policy has further enunciated that there should not be any further engagement of casual labourers until the existing ones were recruited into regular service. Be that as it may, given the compelling shortage of work force, the very department flouted its own alleged ban, tinkered with the aforementioned policy and engaged certain people as casual labourers, albeit with artificial breaks biannually. Thus, keeping aside the ban, even as per the existing policy, those who have been engaged as casual labourers are required to regularized. 14. Thus, keeping aside the ban, even as per the existing policy, those who have been engaged as casual labourers are required to regularized. 14. The Order No. E/Gr.D/Rectt/94-95/29; dated 27.01.1995, through which the respondents were recruited speaks to the following effect: On being recommended successfully in the written and oral tests held on 19.1.1995 and 20.01.1995 by the D.P.C., the following departmental part-time/Casual Mazdoors Officials are ordered to report to the officer named against their names positively on 01.02.1995 at 10.00 hours for on job training for one week and subsequent appointment as test-category Group-D officials subject to the following conditions. 15. In fact, the respondents, on their recruitment, were sent for the necessary departmental training and were subsequently appointed. Even the Telegraphic Order dated 27.01.1995, through which the appointments of the respondents No. 1 to 4 were sought to be kept in abeyance, would not speak about any illegality in the recruitment process, or incompetence of the recruiting officer thereof. Indisputably, the respondents have worked for more than 240 days and are eligible to be absorbed in Group-D existing vacancies. The record further reveals that the respondents were called for written test held on 19.01.1995 and interview conducted on 20.01.1995 by the D.P.C. Thus, evidently before appointing the respondents into regular posts, there was due process of recruitment. 16. Viewed from any angle, even while observing the limitations this Court imposed upon itself in relation to exercising the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is to be concluded that the order of the Tribunal dated 27.09.1997 does not suffer from any legal infirmity and accordingly does not call for any interference by this Court. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit; no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto Miscellaneous Petitions if any, pending shall stand closed.