The main legal point established is that retrenched employees have no vested right to be appointed as Class-III employees after being retrenched and already appointed as Class-IV employees. Additionally, appointments on Class-III posts could only be made through the Staff Selection Commission.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) :-

I.A. No. 7920 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 470 of 2018

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of 110 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. In view of the statements made in the application and having been satisfied of the cause shown by the appellants, I.A. No. 7920 of 2018 is allowed.

L.P.A. No. 234 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 240 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 250 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 267 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 294 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 295 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 301 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 470 of 2018

3. A common issue is involved in all these Letters Patent Appeal and as such, these are taken together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

4. All the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the common judgment pronounced on 13.10.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 2924 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 31 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 1206 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 1435 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 2214 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 3351 of 2010 and W.P. (S) No. 4805 of 2010 by which the writ Court has quashed the impugned letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009, issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner, Office of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and further directed the appellant-State of Jharkhand to consider the case of the respondents along with others taking into consideration the vacancy position and also in view of the fact that persons below the respondents in panel list, have been considered for appointment.

5. Before the writ Court, the petitioners (respondents herein) have prayed for a direction to the respondents (appellants herein) to consider their case and appoint/absorb them on Class-III posts forthwith as the petitioners (respondents herein) are retrenched employees of 1991 census and they are senior in panel of 1991 census employees to those persons who have been given appointment on Class-III post and also in view of the fact that the petitioners (respondents herein) possess requisites qualification for being appointed/absorbed on Class-III posts and vacancies still exist for their appointments/absorption.

6. Further, in one of the writ petition, petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009, issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner, Office of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi whereby application of the petitioner (respondent herein) for his absorption on Class-III post from Class-IV post, has been arbitrarily rejected.

7. The brief facts required for adjudication of these Letters Patent Appeals are that in the year 1991, respondents were appointed in the Census Directorate as Compiler, Checker and Supervisor i.e. Class-III posts on a consolidated salary basis. The respondents were Graduates at the relevant time of their appointments. A panel was also prepared in the year 1991 in which name of the respondents stood at different serial numbers in the said panel list. All the respondents and few others were retrenched in the year 1991 itself. Upon such retrenchment and considering grievances of all such retrenched employees, a direction was issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for their absorption by way of adjustment of the employees of the 1991 Census and this direction was conveyed to the concerned Deputy Commissioners of all the districts vide letter dated 06.11.2003. Consequent upon such directions, the exercise to assess the vacancies both in Class-III and Class-IV posts was completed and the vacancies were assessed as per roster. However, when absorption of the retrenched employees was taken up, pick and choose method was adopted by giving preference to some candidates who were even juniors to the respondents and had been allotted Class-III posts on which they had been appointed whereas respondents were offered Class-IV posts. Grievance of the respondents is that thou