Supreme Court of India
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusSHYAM YADAV AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 28
- Decided
- 14 January 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The State Government had not taken a policy decision to absorb the 1991 retrenched census employees, who were not state employees, and therefore they are not entitled to preference, though they may receive one‑time age relaxation and priority via Employment Exchanges.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined appeals by the State of Bihar against a Patna High Court order directing the absorption of Class III and IV employees who were temporarily appointed by the Central Government for the 1991 Census and whose services were terminated. The petitioners claimed they were state employees and that the State had a policy, based on various letters from 1973‑1987, to absorb retrenched census staff. The Court held that the petitioners were appointed by the Central Government, not the State, and that the cited letters pertained only to the 1971 and 1981 censuses; they did not constitute a policy for future censuses. Consequently, the State had no obligation to give them preference in state appointments. However, the Court allowed a one‑time age relaxation for those within the original age limit and directed that their names be restored or entered in Employment Exchanges for priority in future vacancies. The High Court judgment directing preference was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the retrenched census employees of the 1991 Census, appointed by the Central Government, are employees of the State of Bihar and thus entitled to absorption in state service.
- Whether the State Government had taken a policy decision, as reflected in various letters, to absorb retrenched census employees of future censuses, including the 1991 Census.
- Whether the High Court's direction to give preference and age relaxation to the petitioners in state appointments is legally valid.
Legislation cited
Subjects
census employeesretrainingabsorptionstate servicepolicy decisionemployment exchangeage relaxationtemporary appointmentpublic service recruitment
Judgment
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
< )..- Sel'vice Law--Retrenched census employees-Absorption iii the State
Govemment--No document indicating that State Govemrnent 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 iuid priority in fmwarding of names by employment
exchange.
At the time of Census operations, Government of India appoints D
Class Ill 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 ~iting 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
I~
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A wise eligible for such appointment and in case they are found over aged,
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 Oper~
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 em}Jloyees 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 a~d 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
~r ·
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 Gove·rnment. 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. SHYAMYADAV[AGARAWAL,J.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-
ment Exchange. The petitioners so registered shall be given priority/rt!laxa- B
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-
9234 of 1995 etc. C
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.94 of the Patna High Court
in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1141.4, 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 Respondl'-nts.
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
- lli~. 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 III 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 Governmenfs own offic~s 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 ~' J.J92, a number of retrenched employees of 1991
\
census operations ftled 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 sa!~ v' .:.. »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
p 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 i
G of the retrenched employees of that year. I'
''
The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the Government of ~-J
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 April7, 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 \Yere 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 cen.."ius operations. Before we proceed to ex-
ainine 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
.....t-
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 III 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-service.men only sud\ 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. SHYAM YADAV [AGARAWAL,J.] 255
•'
offices. In the said Jetter it is stated 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 wit~ their individual qualification and merit and that the District
Magistrate should get prepared panel o~ such Class JII/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 appo]nting 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.
A. 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,
~
1986 o! 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 inferen~.:e. The letter dated
May 5, 1987 refers to the earlier letters dated AprilS, 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 f1lling 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 aBsorption 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.
Refere·nce 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
Comq~issioner 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 <;ilso 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 p
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 e~ployees 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 Districl 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 wit4 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 Officerj; 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 cens~ 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
priorjty/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 Trairting on the receipt of the Jist of
such retrenched employees from the Directorate of Census and its subor~
dinate offices. The said Memo only contains directions for the Officers
in-charge of Employment Exchanges to take steps according to the rules
for giving priority/relaxation in the matter of registering and sponsoring the
JH names of the retrenched employees of 1991 census operations in the matter
)
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 district level offices of the State
Government. In the said advertisement it is stated : "Preference shall be
given to Discharged Census Employees 11 • 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
to discharged census employees of 1991 census. The said stipulation could
be for the empJoyees of 1981 census operations since the State Government
had taken a d~cision 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 appeiiants 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
as
made by the High Court 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 a ·overnment 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-
B .cumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgments of the High
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
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 retrenched 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
G 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 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 B
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.
B.K.S. Appeals are allowed.
- __..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "census employees"Sign in to search