D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose, writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5014 of 2009 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2016, whereby, the claim of the appellant for appointment on Class-III post was not granted by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner. He was appointed as Compiler/Census Operator in the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year 1991.

3. Once the census mechanism was over, there was retrenchment of as many as 602 employees in the year 1992.

4. It further appears from the facts of the case that such retrenched employee had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Patna and ultimately the matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Shyam Yadav reported in (1997) 2 SCC 507 in paragraph 1 7 , which reads as under:

“17. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court, insofar as they direct that the retrenched employees of 1991 census operations are entitled to be given preference in the matter of appointment in the services under the State of Bihar, are set aside. The petitioners can apply for appointment against any post falling vacant if they fulfil the qualification and other conditions prescribed for appointment to such post and, if they so apply, they shall be considered in accordance with the rules governing such appointment. In case they are found to be overage, one time relaxation in age may be given to them provided they were within the age-limit prescribed for appointment at the time of their initial recruitment in the census organisation. It is also directed that registration in the Employment Exchange of those petitioners who were earlier so registered prior to their appointment to the census organisation shall be restored and those who were not registered would be entitled to get themselves registered at the Employment Exchange. The petitioners who are thus registered with the Employment Exchange shall be given priority/relaxation in the matter of forwarding their names for appointment against future vacancies. No order as to costs.” (emphasis supplied)

5. In view of the aforesaid decision, it appears that the order of absorption of retrenched employee in other Government Department passed by the Hon'ble High Court was quashed and set aside and liberty was given to the retrenched employees to apply afresh and in case any vacancy arises, their candidature will be considered in accordance with law.

6. In view of the aforesaid direction, there was no right vested in such type of employees, who were retrenched to get themselves to be absorbed in the Government Department nor was there any right vested in them to be regularised.

7. After lapse of several years i.e. more than period of one decade, a policy was floated by the State of Jharkhand dated 5th August, 2006, which is at Annexure-9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal for absorption of such employees. In fact, this policy also renders counter to the observation made in paragraph 17 of the aforesaid decision. Nonetheless, looking to the hardship of unemployed persons and as a compassionate measure, the Scheme was floated with a view to accommodate retrenched employees, who were Compilers/Census Operators in the year 1991, they were employed in the month of October 2006.

8. This appellant (original petitioner) expects that as he was employed for few months in the year 1991 as a Class-III employee, now after lapse of more than one and half decade, he should be absorbed as a Class-III employee. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that-

(a) There is no right vested in the retrenched