SUVANSHSAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.W.J.C. No. 8810/1989. The fifty four petitioners in C. W. J. C. No. 8810/1989 were earlier appointed as Village Level Workers. Their appointments however, were, undone (by orders contained in Annexures 7 and 5 which come under challenged in these writ petitions) on the basis of an ad-interim order passed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave petition whereby the Supreme Court stayed the operation of an order of the High Court. During the pendency of this application before this court, the Special Leave petition was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 29-4-1991. The petitioners claim that this should logically lead to the quashing of the order of cancellation of their appointments as the interim order of the Supreme Court, on which alone the impugned order was founded, was no longer in existence, the Special leave petition itself having been dismissed. This, in short, is the sum and substance of this case.

(2.) In order, however, to put it in a factual context the following material facts may be taken note of.

(3.) The petitioners were earlier employed by the State Government for the census operations and their services were retrenched after the conclusion of the census operations in 1981. The petitioners belong to Gaya district. There were many similarly retrenched census employees in other districts of the State as well. As their number was considerably large and their retrenchment had led to obvious hardships, the State Government seems to have conceived certain plans for their absorption in the State Government. It appears from certain allied matters that earlier came to this court, that the State Government had contemplated absorption of all the retrenched census staff on a priority basis in the vacancies that might be available in future. It appears that on the level of implementation this policy decision of the State Government had no uniform application and in different districts the retrenched census employees got different treatments by the respective District Magistrates who happen to be the appointing authority in respect of Class III and Class IV employees. Consequently retrenched census employees from different districts (not the present petitioners) earlier came to this court making a grievance that the District Magistrates of their respective districts were not implementing the Government policy regarding giving priority to the retrenched census staff andfthis led to an adverse discrimination against them. Orders passed by this court in two such cases have been enclosed with this writ petition marked as Annexures 9 and 10. A photostate copy of the certified copy of an order passed by a Bench of this court in another similar writ petition has also been produced before me. Thus, altogether there are three such cases of which I propose to take a brief note. (i) C.W.J.C. No. 1010/1988 was at the instance of retrenched census staff of Patna district. They came to this court making a grievance that the State Government had taken a decision that the retrenched staff of census department shall be absorbed in suitable posts and that so long these retrenched staff were not absorbed, no person shall be appointed from the open market. It was the grievance of the petitioners in that case that while this policy decision was being implemented in some other districts of the State, it was not being done so in the district of Patna. After hearing the parties, that application was disposed of at the stage of admission itself by order dated 1-4-1988. In this court, this court directed as follows:-