Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. The first respondent was engaged from 28.5.2001 as a part time casual labourer continuously and later, was engaged to work as a GDS Mail Deliverer in an existing vacancy at Kiralur Branch Post Office under Velur Sub Post Office with effect from 7.11.2005 on a temporary basis with an artificial break of service. Ultimately, noticing a provision for preferential treatment to full time casual labourers in respect of appointment to GD post provided they fulfill certain conditions, the respondent moved the CAT seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to declare that applicant is eligible and entitled to be considered for appointment in the existing vacancy of GDS Mail Deliverer at Kiralur Branch Post Officer or any other GDS vacancy in terms of Annexure A-3.
(ii) to issue appropriate directions/orders to the respondents to consider applicant's claim for appointment as GDS Mail Deliverer Kiralur Post Officer in terms of Annexure A-3 instructions and to issue necessary orders within a time frame as deemed fit for this Hon'ble Tribunal.
2. In response, the establishment contended before the CAT that the applicant's engagement as part time labourer was not through employment exchange and therefore, she would not get the benefit of the departmental order dated 6.6.1988 relied on by her.
3. After adverting to and considering the entire materials on record and all arguments advanced, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that if the department, as a matter of policy, has decided to fill the post of GDS MD at Kiralur Branch Office or in any other branch from out of those who turned out to be surplus, the same cannot be objected to or interfered with by the Tribunal with a view to permit consideration of the appointment of the applicant as GDSMD. The Tribunal, however, directed that if the establishment desires to fill up the vacancies otherwise than by accommodating surplusers, invoking the order dated 6.6.1988, it has to give preference to the applicant who had been working as a part time casual labourer at least for five years even by 2006 when the Tribunal considered the applicant's case.
4. After considering the materials on record in the light of the arguments on behalf of the department that she was a back door recruit and not an employment exchange recruit, it needs to be noted that the applicant woman worked as a casual labourer for the establishment for more than five years even by the time the Tribunal granted relief to her and the relief granted in no way contradicts the establishment's interest to shift any surplus hand. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity in the impugned Ext.P3 decision of the Tribunal. The writ petition hence fails. It is also submitted that the impugned order was given effect to and the first respondent was appointed from 2007.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.