STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusSHYAM YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                  STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.                                 A
                             v.
               SHYAM YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                          JANUARY 14, 1997

            (S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)                          B

       Se1vice Law---Retrenched census employee~Absorption iii the State
Govemment-No document indicating that State Govemment has decided to
absorb them in Govemment Se1vices nor to show that any of them was earlier
a State Govemment employee-Hence, the High Court's direction to give C
preference to such employees in the matter of appointment in the State ser-
vices, is held liable to be set aside-However, such employees are entitled to
relaxation to age-limit i11td priority in forwarding of name!; by employment
exchange.

       At the time of Census operations, Government of India appoints D
Class III and Class IV employees but after the completion of the said
operation, services of those employees get terminated. Similar appoint-
ment and termination were made in connection with 1991 census opera-
tions.

       The Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Government of
                                                                           E
India requested the Chief Secretary of the State to absorb the retrenched
census employee in its office. But the Chief Secretary showed his con-
straints for the reason that In different offices of the state Government
itself, there was an excess number of both retrenched and surplus
employees still waiting for readjustment.                                 F
      The respondents filed a writ petition for direction to the State
Government to absorb them against the existing vacancies available in
different departments in the State Government. The High Court allowed
the writ petition on the ground that the State Government took a policy
decision on January 8, 1973 to provide employment by absorbing G
retrenched census employees, by relying on the different letters of the State
Government in which the said policy was reiterated through various
executive instructions. The High Court directed the State Government to
absorb them along with others at the time of regular appointment against      >
suitable posts and that they should be given preference, if they are other- H
                                   249
    250                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A wise eligible for such appointment and in case they are found over aged,        y
    age relaxation equivalent to the period they have served in the Census
    Department, can also be provided but such consideration shall be strictly
    in accordance with inter se seniority of the retrenched employees of that
    year. Hence, State preferred this appeal.

B       The appellant contented that the documents on which High Court
  relied related to retrenched employees of 1971 and 1981 Census Opera·
  tions. In regard to the retrenched employees of 1991 Census Operation,
  the State Government has fully considered their case and decided that it
  was not possible to absorb them in State Service because there was excess
C number of both retrenched and surplus em1iloyees waiting for readjust·
  ment.

        Respondent on the other hand contended that they were employees
  of the State Government having been employed in connection with the
  census operations in the State and it is the obligation of the State Govern·
D ment to absorb them in the service under the State. This contention has
  been raised for the first time in this court.

         Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgement of the High
    Court, this Court
E          HELD : 1. In view of the specific averment contained in the Writ
    Petition that the Petitioners were given temporary appointment in the
    census department of the Central Government, there is no basis for the
    claim of the petitioners that they were the employees of the State Govern·
    ment and, therefore, it is the obligation of the State Government to absorb
F   them. [253-H]

        2. On considering the letters on which High Court had relied, it can
  be construed that those letters referred to the census operations of 1971
  and 1981. But there is nothing in the said letters, which may indicate that
G it contains a policy for the absorption of retrenched census employees for
  the future census operations. On the other hand, there are letters of the
  State Government stating that it was not possible for the State Govern·
  ment to absorb the retrenched employees of 1991 Census operation in the
  State Government. So, it cannot be said the State Government had taken
  any policy decision regarding absorption of retrenched Census employees
H for the future census operations. [254·B·D]
                        STATE v. SHYAM YADAV [AGARAWAL, J.]                        251

                3. The petitioner may be given one time relaxation in age in case of      A
          their appointment, provided they were within the age limit prescribed for
          appointment at the time of their initial recruitment in the census operation.
          Employment Exchange is directed to restore the names of the petitioners
          who were earlier registered with them and those petitioners who were not yet
          registered would be entitled to get themselves registered with the Employ-      B
          ment Exchange. The petitioners so registered shall be given priority/relaxa-
          tion by the Employment Exchange in the matter of fonvarding their names
          for appointment against the future vacancies. [260-H, 261-A·B]

                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9227-
          ~ ~~ili.                                                                        c
                From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.94 of the Patna High Court
          in C.W.J.C. Nos. 11414, 12248, 11823, 12590, 12258/92, 324, 533 and 1311
          of 1993.

___,,._         B.B. Singh for the Appellants.                                            D
                Vasudev Prasad, Devendra Kumar, Mrs. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, S.K.
          Sinha and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents.

                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The question that falls for consideration in these
                                                                                          E
          appeals is whether Class III and Class IV employees who were employed
          in connection with census operations of 1991 in the State of Bihar and
          whose services have been terminated after the completion of the census
~---~
          work are entitled to seek absorption in service under the Government of
          llihM.                                                                          F

                 The census operations are conducted by the Government of India in
          accordance with the provisions of The Census Act, 1948 after an interval
          of 10 years. In connection with the said census operations Class UI and
          Class IV employees are employed as Supervisors, Checkers, Compilers,
          etc. for collecting different datas in the various Tabulation Offices estab-    G
          lished in different parts of the Country. After the completion of the census
          operations the services of these employees are terminated. Demands have
          been raised from time to time by such retrenched census employees for
          their absorption in service in the Central Government or in the State
          Government. Similar appointments were made on the posts of Supervisors,         H
    252                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A Checkers, Compilers, etc. in connection with 1991 census operations and
    after the completion of the census operations their services were ter-
    minated. By his letter dated December 26, 1991, the Registrar General and
    Census Commissioner, Government of India, requested the Chief
    Secretaries of the States to extend whatever assistance the State Govern-
B   ment could provide in absorbing in the State Government's own offices as ·
    well as in the undertakings the temporary staff appointed in connection
    with the census work when the Regional Tabulation Offices which have
    been set up in the States/Union Territories are wound up in 1992. The
    Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Personnel and
    Administrative Reforms, by his letter dated September 2, 1992, informed
C   the Registrar General and Census Commissioner that the number of
    retrenched and surplus employees of the different offices of the State
    Government are excessive and they are waiting for being adjusted in the
    Government service but till now it has not been possible to give them a
    berth and in the circumstances it would not be possible for the State
D   Government to absorb the retrenched census employees of State Govern-
    ment of India in its offices. Feeling aggrieved by the said communication         +-
    dated September 2, J.'.l92, a number of retrenched employees of 1991
                                                                                        \
    census operations filed Writ Petitions in the Patna High Court for quashing
    the letter dated September 2, 1992 and for a direction to the State Govern-
    ment of Bihar to absorb them against existing vacancies available in dif-
E   ferent departments under the State Government. The sai~ v.' ·'' t>etitions
    have been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgments dated
    February 18, 1994 and March 9, 1994. The High Court has directed the
    State Government to consider the cases of the retrenched census
    employees (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners") who had filed the
F   Writ Petitions before the High Court for their absorption along with others
    at the time of regular appointment against suitable posts and that they
    should be given preference, if they are otherwise eligible for such appoint-
    ment, and in case they are found over age, age relaxation equivalent to the
    period they have served in the Census Department, can also be provided,
    but such consideration shall be· strictly in accordance with inter se seniority         '
G   of the retrenched employees of that year.                                               I'
          The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the Government of            ~-)
    Bihar in its Cabinet meeting held on January 8, 1973 took a policy decision
    to provide employment by absorbing retrenched census employees and that
H   the said policy decision was reiterated through various executive instruc-
    I
I


                      STATE v. SHYAM YADAV [AGARAWAL,J.)                      253

        tions of the State Government contained in letters dated April 7, 1982, May A
        14, 1985, February 14, 1986, May 5, 1987 and August 19, 1987. The High
        Court has also referred to the orders passed in other Writ Petitions relating
        to retrenched employees of 1971 and 1981 census wherein directions were
        issued to the State Government to consider the cases of retrenched
        employees of 1971 and 1981 census for employment under the State. The B
        High Court was of the view that from time to time the authorities decided
        to consider the cases for absorption/appointment of 1991 retrenched cen-
        sus employees at the same pattern on which the other retrenched census
        employees were absorbed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments of the
        High Court, the State of Bihar has filed these appeals.
                                                                                     c
               The question which requires examination is whether the Government
        of Bihar has taken a policy decision regarding absorption of the retrenched
        census employees of 1991 census operations. Before we proceed to ex-
        amine the question, we would refer to the submission urged by Shri
        Vasudev Prasad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, D
        that the petitioners were employees of the State Government having been
        employed in connection with the census operations in the State of Bihar
        and that it was the obligation of the State Government to absorb them in
        service under the State. This contention has been raised for the first time
        in this Court. It was not urged before the High Court. Moreover, it runs
        against the case set up by the petitioners in Writ Petitions filed before the E
        High Court wherein it has been stated that the Union of India in the
        Census Department had published an advertisement on January 26, 1991
        in various daily newspapers inviting applications for census work in 1991
        for Grade Ill and Grade IV posts of Supervisors, Checkers, Compilers, etc.
        in the various districts mentioned therein and that in accordance with the F
        said advertisement some of the petitioners applied for appointment while
        names of some of them were directly forwarded by the Employment
        Exchanges in various districts and that after interview by a Selection
        Committee they were offered appointment by the Central Government in
        the Home Ministry and the petitioners accepted the offer of appointment
        and that on the basis of the said offer they were given temporary appoint- G
        ment in the Census Department of the Central Government and sub-
        sequently after the completion of the census operations their services were
        terminated. In view of the specific averments contained in the Writ Peti-
        tion, there is no basis for the claim by the petitioners that they were
        employees of the State Government and, therefore, it is the obligation of H
    254                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A the State Government to absorb them.

           We would now examine the question whether the Government of
    Bihar had taken a policy decision regarding absorption of the retrenched
    employees of 1991 census in the State services. In order to establish the
    case that such· a policy decision had been taken, the learned counsel for
B   petitioners has taken us through the various documents on which reliance
    has been placed by the High Court.

        Shri B.B. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
  has, however, submitted that those documents relate to retrenched census
C employees employed in connection with the census operations of 1971 and
  1981 and do not relate to census operations of 1991 and that as regards
  the retrenched employees of 1991 census the policy of the State Govern-
  ment is that it is not possible to absorb them since it found great difficulty
  in absorbing the employees of 1981 census operations and there are a large
D number of retrenched employees of the State Government who are seeking
  absorption. We will, therefore, briefly refer to tbese documents.
                                                                                   i-

         The first document is the Memo dated January 8, 1973 which deals
  with the priority to be given to the retrenched Government servants in
  appointments to be made to non-Gazetted Class III and Class IV posts.
E The said Memo is general in nature relating to employees who had been
  retrenched from Government service and directs that to the posts that are
  reserved as per rule for SCs/STs or Ex-servicemen only sudl candidates
  from the list of retrenched persons should be appointed who come in the
  above category and if there are no candidates belonging to these categories
F in the list then the candidates of SCs and STs or Ex- servicemen should be
  taken from outside and that 50% of the unreserved vacancies should be
  filled up on priority basis by the suitable candidates from amongst the
  retrenched hands and that the remaining vacant posts should be filled up
  by the outsiders by adopting the normal procedure. The said Memo makes
  no mention of retrenched census employees· of the Central Government
G and it cannot, therefore, be construed as containing a policy decision
  regarding absorption of retrenched census employees of the Central
  Government, the letter dated April 7/8, 1982 from the Chief Secretary to
  all the Departments of the Government as well as the Head of Depart-
  ments and District Magistrates relates to appointment of retrenched
H employees of the census operation offices in the State in Government
              STATE v.SHYAMYADAV[AGARAWAL,J.]                          255

offices. In the said Jetter it is staled that work in Bihar Tabulation Offices A
which were opened in different parts of the State under the census opera-
tion office has now been completed and the employees on account of the
retrenchment of their services were facing problems of unemployment. By
the said letter it was directed that arrangement should be made to appoint
these retrenched employees against vacant posts by giving them priority in B
keeping with their individual qualification and merit and that the District
Magistrate should get prepared panel of such Class III/IV employees who
had been retrenched from census operation office and preserve the same
with them so that in future as and when vacancy comes up he would fill up
the post by appointing persons from this panel. It was, however, stated that
there shall be no concession in age limit in making such appointment and C
that this other would not apply in cases of appointment made on the basis
of written competitive examinations conducted by Bihar Public Service
Commission or Lower Service Selection Board. In the letter dated May
14/17, 1985 from the Chief Secretary to all Departments of the Govern-
ment, all Heads of Department, Divisional Commissioners, District D
Magistrates and undertakings of the State Government it was stated that
the Government had taken a decision after due consideration to absorb the
retrenched census employees of the census operations in the Government
services by appointing them against vacancies on priority basis as per their
qualifications as per the following directions :-
                                                                             E
        1. Where appointment is not being made by Bihar Public Service
        Commission or Lower Service Selection Board, at the district level
        if two persons out of whom one is a retrenched census employee
        from census is found suitable equally then the retrenched census
        employee may be given preference. This concession should be           F
        allowed only when it conforms to the prescribed appointment
        procedure and is within the frame work of reservation principles.

        2. So far as relaxation of age limit is concerned, the period of
        service of the retrenched employee in census operation may be
        extended, but the maximum period of exemption should not exceed G
        3 years. Such exemption is admissible to only such retrenched
        employees of census operations who have worked for at least six
        months continuously in census operations.

        3. The District Magistrates should prepare panel of IVth grade       H
    256                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A            employees retrenched from census operation and keep it with them
             and the vacant posts and future vacancies should be filled up from
             this panel.

            4. The Government should be kept posted with the information
            from time to time as to the appointments so far made or to be
B           made in future in accordance with these instructions.

           The said directions were reiterated in the letter dated February 14,
                                                                                      -i'
    1986 of the Chief Secretary to all Government Departments, All
    Departmental Heads, All Divisional Commissioners, All District undertak·
c   ings. By the said letter the concerned officers were directed to furnish
    information about the total number of appointments that were made since
    April 8, 1982 and the number of retrenched census employees who were
    appointed. The next document is the letter dated May 5, 1987 from the
    Chief Secretary to all Departments of Government, all Heads of Depart·
    ment, Divisional Commissioners and District Magistrates. Shri Vasudev
D   Prasad has placed strong reliance on this. letter and has submitted that it
    shows that the decision of the State Government regarding absorption was
    not confined to retrenched census employees of 1971 and 1981 census
    operations but was a general decision covering retrenched census
    employees of subsequent census operations also. We do not find anything
E   in the said letter which may lend support to this inferen1.:e. The letter dated
    May 5, 1987 refers to the earlier letters dated April 8, 1982, May 17, 1985
    and February 14, 1986, and after setting out the directions given in the
    letters aforementioned further directions with regard to absorption of
    retrenched census employees were given as under :·

F            (i) the prohibitory orders in connection with not filling the existing
             vacancies in the State should not be applied in the cases of
                                                                                      (
             appointment of such employees;

             (ii) exemption regarding age limit be extended upto the age of 35
             years;
G
                                                             I

             (iii) the retrenched employee should be given the foremost priority
             subject to the condition that the retrenched employee holds
                                                                                      >'."
             prescribed qualifications showing his competence for the post, and

H            (iv) the directions regarding reservation issued from time to time
              STATE v. SHYAMYADAV[AGARAWAL,J.]                        257

        would be fully applicable.                                          A

      The letter dated May 5, 1987 has to be read in the same context as
the earlier letters referred to above. If the letter is thus read, it can only
be construed to refer to retrenched census employees of 1981 census
operations. There is nothing in the said letter which may indicate that it B
contains a policy for aosorption for the retrenched census employees of
future census operations also. Having considered the various letters on
which reliance has been placed by the High Court, we are unable to hold
that on the basis of the said letters it can be said that the Government of
Bihar had taken a policy decision regarding absorption of retrenched
census employees of future census operations including the retrenched C
census employees of 1991 census operations.

       Reference may now be made to the letters pertammg to ·the
retrenched employees of 1991 census operations. A reference has already
been made earlier to the letter of the Registrar General and Census D
Com!Ilissioner dated December 26, 1991 and the reply of the Government
of Bihar dated September 2, 1992 to the said letter. The High Court has
referred to letter dated July 23, 1992 from the Commissioner, Saharsa
Division, and the letter of the Secretary to the Government of Bihar dated·
September 29, 1992 addressed to all the Commissioners. It appears that by
letter dated March 4, 1992, the Director, Census Operations, Bihar, had E
made a request for absorption of retrenched census employees of 1991 and
the Regional Census Employees Union, Saharsa Division, were also sub-
mitting a demand regarding employment of retrenched census employees
of 1991 census. By his letter dated July 23, 1992, addressed to the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Bihar, the Commissioner, Saharsa F
Division, sought directions about the decision of the State Government in
this regard. In the said letter the Commissioner has made a reference to
the earlier letter dated May 5, 1987 from the Chief Secretary containing
instructions regarding adjustment of retrenched census employees of 1981
census and has stated that those employees have been absorbed in the
regional offices. Thereafter the Secretary to the Government of Bihar, G
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Special Retrench-
ment Cell, addressed a letter dated September 19, 1992 to all the Divisional
Commissioners and District Magistrates wherein he dealt with the matter
of absorption of the retrenched employees from census office of Govern-
ment of India. In the said letter it is stated that the State Government had H
    258                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A received a request from the Registrar General and Census Commissioner
    of the Government of India, regarding absorption of the employees who
    were in census offices of Government of India for census operation, 1991
    and that the State Government having fully considered the case and has
    taken this decision, that it is not possible for the State Government to
    assimilate the retrenched employees of the census offices of the Govern-
B
    ment of India, because in different offices of the State Government itself
    there is an excess number of both retrenched and surplus employees
    waiting for readjustment. A copy of the letter No. 261 dated September 2,
    1992 sent to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of the
    Government of India was also enclosed for information.
c
          The letter dated September 29, 1992 from the Secretary to the
    Government of Bihar, Department of Personnel and Administrative
    Reforms, Special Retrenchment Cell, addressed to all Divisional Commis-
    sioners and District Magistrates referred to by the High Court was not sent
D   in reference to letter of the Commissioner, Saharsa Division, dated July 23,
    1992. The said letter dated September 29, 1992 deals with absorption of
    retrenchment/surplus staff of the State Government and it does not relate
    to retrenched employees of 1991 census operations which matter was
    specifically dealt with in the earlier letter dated September 19, 1992.

E          Shri Vasudev Prasad has placed strong reliance on Memo dated
    October 18, 1993 from the Directorate of Employment and Training,
    Government of Bihar, addressed to all the Officer< in-charge of Employ-
    ment Exchanges in the State of Bihar. The said Memo relates to
    priorities/relaxation in the matter of appointment of retrenched employees
F   of the regional census offices in the State of Bihar and makes a reference
    to letter of January 1993 received from the Directorate General of Employ-
    ment and Training, New Delhi. By the said Memo it was directed that the
    necessary steps be, taken in accordance with the rules by giving
    priority/relaxation to the retrenched employees who were employed in
    connection with 1991 census operations as per the directions of the Direc-
G   torate General of Employment and Training on the receipt of the list of
    such retrenched employees from the Directorate of Census and its subor-
    dinate offices. The said Memo only contains directions for the Officers



H
    in-charge of Employment Exchanges to take steps according to the rules
    for giving priority/relaxation in the matter of registering and sponsoring the
    names of the retrenched employees of 1991 census operations in the matter
                                                                                     c
)
                  STATE v. SHYAMYADAV[AGARAWAL,J.)                          259

    of appointment in the Government services/undertakings. There is nothing A
    in the said letter to indicate that the Government of Bihar had given a
    commitment regarding absorption of the retrenched census employees of
    1991 census. operations in the service of the State Government.

           Shri Vasudev Prasad has also invited our attention to the advertise-
    ment dated April 21, 1993 (published in the newspaper 'Hindustan' dated B
    May 17, 1993) issued by the District Employment Officer, Purnea, whereby
    applications were invited for appointment on Grade IV posts in the District
    Collectorate, Kishanganj and other distriet level offices of the State
    Government. In the said advertisement it is stated : "Preference shall be
    given to Discharged Census Employees". It has been submitted that this C
    advertisement shows that the policy of the State Government was to give
    preference in the matter of appointment to discharged census employees
    of 1991 census. This contention is not borne out by the words used in the
    advertisement because it is not expressly stated in the advertisement that
    the stipulation regarding preference contained in this advertisement relates D
    lo discharged census employees of 1991 census. The said stipulation could
    be for the employees of 1981 census operations since the State Government
    had taken a decision for their absorption. Moreover from the rejoinder
    filed on behalf° of the appellants it appears that not a single retrenched
    census employee of 1991 census operations has been appointed in Purnea
    on the basis of the said advertisement.                                      E

           Our attention has also been invited to order dated January 10, 1996
    relating to posting of 25 persons out of 26 retrenched census employees
    who had been appointed by order dated December 26, 1995 as Clerks. In
    the rejoinder filed on behalf of the appellants it has been pointed out that   F
    these 26 retrenched census employees had been employed in connection
    with 1971 and 1981 census operations and not for 1991 census operations.

           Thus there is nothing in the docum.ents to which reference has been
    made by the High Court as well as in the documents on which reliance has ·
    been placed by Shri Vasudev Prasad which may indicate that the State G
    Government had taken a policy decision for absorption of retrenched
    census employees of 1991 census operation. On the other hand, there are
    letters of the State Government dated September 2, 1992· and September
    19, 1992 clearly stating that it was not possible for the State Government
    to absorb retrenched employees of 1991 census operations in the service H
    260                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A of the Government of Bihar. There is no material on record to show that
    the decision of the State Government as contained in the letters dated
    September 2, 1992 and September 19, 1992 was modified subsequently by
    the State Government and it was decided to absorb such retrenched
    employees of 1991 census operations in the State service. In these cir-
    cumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgments of the High
B
    Court holding that in view of the policy decision taken by the State
    Government_regarding their absorption the retrenched census employees
    of 1991 census operations are entitled to be absorbed in the State services
    and on that basis the said employees can claim preference or priority in
    the matter of such appointment in service under the State Government.
c
         Some of the petitioners had registered themselves with the Employ-
  ment Exchange prior to their appointment in connection with 1991 census
  operations. Their names were forwarded by the concerned Employment
  Exchange and on that basis they were so appointed on a post connected
D with 1991 census operations and consequently their names were deleted
  from the register in the Employment Exchange. Since they have been
  retrenched from the census office, they are entitled to have their names        i:
  restored in the register in the concerned Employment Exchange. Similarly,
  those retrenched employees of 1991 census operations who were not
  registered with any Employment Exchange can get themselves registered
E at an Employment Exchange. In accordance with the directions given by
  the Directorate General of Employment and Training, New Delhi, referred
  to in the Memo of the Director of Employment and Training, Bihar dated
  October 18, 1993, such retrencheci census employees should be given
  priority/relaxation by the Employment Exchange wherein they are
F registered in the matter of sponsoring and forwarding their names for
  appointment against future vacancies.

          In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments of
  the High Court, in so far as they direct that the retrenched employees of
  1991 census operations are entitled to be given preference in the matter of
G 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 over
H age, one time relaxation in age may be given to them provided they were
                      STATE v. SHYAMYADAV[AGARAWAL,J.]                           261

        within the age limit prescribed for appointment at the time of their initial    A
        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                 B
        priority/relaxation in the matter of forwarding their names for appointment
        against future vacancies. No order as to costs.

        B.K.S.                                                 Appeals are allowed.




---""