- (1.) HEARD Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the Respondent -State, Mrs. Malti Chaurasia, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 13, Mrs. Vandana Bharati, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 11 & 16 and Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 9, 12, 16 and 17.
(2.) PETITIONERS , in this writ application, have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to appoint the petitioners in Class III posts, considering the fact that the petitioners are retrenched employees of 1991 census and they are purportedly senior in the panel of the 1991 census employees. Though a further prayer has been made for quashing of letters of appointment, dated - 3110.2006, 01.12.2006 and 10.10.2006 as contained in Annexures -13, 13/1 and 13/2 of the writ application by which the Respondent Nos. 7 to 18 have been appointed on Class III posts but this relief has not been pressed at the time of hearing on behalf of the petitioners. The facts of the petitioners' case in brief are that the petitioners were initially appointed in the Census Directorate as Compiler, checker and Supervisor i.e. Class III posts, in the year 1991 although on a consolidated salary basis. The petitioners were Graduates at the relevant time of appointment. A Panel was prepared in the year 1991 in which the names of the petitioners stood at different serial numbers. All these petitioners together with the Respondent Nos. 7 to 18 were retrenched sometime in the year 1991 itself. Upon such retrenchment and considering the grievances of all such retrenched employees, a direction was issued by the Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, for their absorption by way of adjustment of the employees of the 1991 census and this directive was conveyed to the concerned Deputy Commissioners of all the districts vide letter dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure -2). 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. It appears that when the absorption of the retrenched employees was taken up, the Respondent Nos. 7 to 18 were given preference and allotted Class III posts on which they were appointed. However, the petitioners were offered instead, Class IV posts.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that though they possessed the requisite qualifications for their appointment on Class III posts and though their names appeared in the panel above the names of the private Respondent Nos. 7 to 18, the petitioners have been arbitrarily denied the offer for Class III posts while granting such benefits to the Respondent Nos. 7 to 18.;