P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

All these original petitions have been filed by the applicants in the concerned O.As, who lost their battle in the first round. The challenge is against the interference declined by the Central Administrative Tribunal as to the correctness and sustainability of the relevant Recruitment Rules as amended in the years 2010 and 2012 [Department of Posts (Postman & Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 2010 and Department of Posts (Postman & Mail Guard) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2012 respectively], whereby the method of recruitment to the posts of MTS (Multi Tasking Staff) and Postman has undergone a substantial change, as to the course to be followed, if qualified departmental hands are not available to fill up the posts. Earlier, such unfilled posts were being thrown open to the employees who are working as GDS, till the year 2010, whereas after the amendment of the Rules, the field to the said extent goes for direct recruitment. For convenience of reference, O.P. (CAT) No. 23 of 2015 is taken as the lead case.

2. All the petitioners herein belong to GDS, serving in different capacities for quite long. They were aspirants to be promoted to the post of Multi Tasking Staff which was in the Group D segment earlier (now classified as 'Group C' post with lesser grade/pay) and also for the post of Postman. The relevant Recruitment Rules formulated by the Government in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which govern the field, are the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Postman/Mail Guards/Head Mail Guards) Recruitment Rules, 1969. Considering the necessity to have it amended, the Government brought about necessary Rules [Department of Posts (Postman/Village Postman and Mail Guards) Recruitment Rules 1989] as per Annexure A1. The method of filling up of the vacancies, as per the relevant clause in Annexure A1 Rules, was substantially changed by introduction of Annexure A2 Rules in the year 2010 [Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 2010], whereby the residual/left over vacancies [for want of qualified hands in the Department], which was hitherto given to the GDS employees, came to be allotted for direct recruitment, which was to the chagrin of the petitioners.

3. By the passage of time, some minor changes were introduced as per Annexure A3 Rules in the year 2012 [Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 2012]. Though the provision for direct recruitment was introduced as per Annexure A2 Rules of the year 2010, the petitioners found it necessary to challenge the Rules only much later, i.e., after having issued Annexure A3 Rules in the year 2012. It was accordingly, that the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing the O.As raising the prayers in the following terms [as given in O.P.(CAT) No. 23 of 2015 (arising from O.A. No. 649 of 2013)]:

"(i) To declare that (Annexure A2) Department of Posts (Postmen/Mail Guards/Head Mail Guards) Recruitment Rules 2010 as amended in Annexure A3 is illegal, unconstitutional and liable to be set aside.

(ii) To set aside Annexure A2 and Annexure A3 by quashing the same being invalid and inoperative.

(iii) To direct the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion against the unfilled departmental vacancies to the year 2012 to the post of post-man from the GDS as per 1989 rules and to offer them appointment accordingly with all consequential benefits.

(iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and

(v) Grant the cost of this Original Application.

4. The challenge was resisted from the part of the Department, who filed a detailed written statement as to the sequence of events and the circumstances under which the Rules were sought to be changed. The mistake pointed out from the part of the applicants as to the 'name' of the Rules, which was sought to be repealed on issuing Annexure A2 Rules as given in the opening paragraph [in supersession of t