Several contentions were raised by the counsel appearing for the appellants before us to challenge the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Calcutta High Court as also by the CAT. It was submitted that so far as the directions issued by the CAT are concerned, the only direction issued in the said order was to reengage the respondents as casual labours if there was vacancy in preference to fresher and those who rendered lesser length of service as casual labours. It was pointed out that the respondents could not be appointed as casual labours in terms of the aforesaid direction as there was a total ban on fresh appointments and therefore, there was no occasion of giving any fresh appointment to any person and that no fresh engagement was made of any casual labour as against any vacancy. So far as the notes of Assistant Legal Adviser and Director General are concerned, it was submitted that no reliance could have been placed on the same by the High Court as they were internal communications and that they having not been publicized, the same could not have been treated as official communication made by the competent authority. It was further submitted that the same were only official notes in the course of processing of the files of the respondents and that the same could not have been treated by the High Court as orders issued and publicized by the competent authority and therefore, the disposal of the writ petition on the said notes was invalid and unjustified. It was also submitted that neither the CAT nor the High Court has any power to direct absorption of the respondents when they had worked only for two years and on the date when the original application was filed before the CAT, they were not even working as casual workers. The further submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant was that the office memorandum, which was issued in 1985, could not have been relied upon or made the basis for issuing orders in favour of the respondents particularly in view of the fact that on the date when the aforesaid office memorandum was issued, the respondents had already been disengaged from service and were not working with the Appellant No. 2. The aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellants were refuted by the counsel appearing for the respondent contending, inter alia, that since the note written by the Director General, to which reference has been made by the High Court as also the aforesaid communications between the authorities were in favour of the respondents, both the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in relying on the same for issuing necessary directions to the appellants. It was also submitted by him as has been held by the High Court that there was a clear discrimination for ten persons, who were similarly situated as the respondents were absorbed by the appellants whereas the respondents were denied similar benefits without any reasonable explanation for such hostile discrimination. Submit