JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.: The petitioners worked as Census enumerators under Government of West Bengal and have come under the purview of exempted categories as ex-census employees on the basis of notification of Labour Department, Government of West Bengal, vide Government Order No. 5120(60) LW dated 17th October, 1977. 2. According to the further notification of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal, 30% of the total vacancies arising in an year to be filled up falling within the exempted categories. 3. The ad hoc committee of District Primary School Council, Howrah, made requisition to the Employment Exchange in the year 1986 for sponsoring the names from different categories but they failed to make any requisition to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools from the ex-census employees falling under exempted categories. 4. Naturally, the name of the petitioner in the first petition was sponsored as a candidate under general category. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that in the year 1998, 11 persons from the ex-census employees under exempted category were appointed by the Council but no such effect was given in respect of the petitioner having all certificates that the petitioner is ex-census employee under exempted categories. Writ petitioners made in galore in respect of various aspects when several considerations were made. Ultimately in view of an order of this Hon'ble Court a consideration was made by an authority but refused to accept the contention of the petitioner or petitioners. Therefore, the petitioner along with others ultimately challenged such consideration not being in accordance with the law on the following reasons: I) Requisition should be made by the Council declaring the vacancy and requisite qualification for sponsoring the names from the Employment Exchange; II) The Employment Exchange should sent the names on the ratio 1 : 20 against declared vacancy; III) Selection committee to be framed by the Council for selection; IV) Interview will be held from against the sponsored candidates; V) A panel should be prepared to fill up the posts; VI) The said panel should be approved by the Director of School Education, West Bengal; VII) Formalities of appointment etc. 6. The petitioner states that in spite of appropriate rules in respect thereto the process of selection has not been adapted but 11 persons were appointed only taking into plea that they were given appointments as per order of the Court. 6. The petitioner states that in spite of appropriate rules in respect thereto the process of selection has not been adapted but 11 persons were appointed only taking into plea that they were given appointments as per order of the Court. The petitioners were deprived in the following manner: I) The petitioner's name was sponsored from the Employment Exchange as General Category; II) The petitioner duly interviewed in the year 1993 under General Category; III) The fate of such interview did not disclose and/or publish till date Therefore, the petitioner is not aware whether his name appeared in the panel or not till date to favour for appointment; IV) District Primary School Council, Howrah, falsely stated about disclosure of the result not only in this respect but also in connection with the appointment of 11 persons under exempted category but there was no order passed by any Court including Supreme Court of India in this respect; V) The name of the 11 persons already favoured for appointments were never sponsored by the Employment Exchange; VI) As the petitioner's name sponsored from the Employment Exchange and interviewed under General Category and 11 persons given appointment without sponsoring by the Employment Exchange under exempted category, the petitioner's claim is justifiable for appointment under exempted category; VII) As the Government of West Bengal issued orders for reservation of quota for exempted category as well as ex-census employees in the year 1977-78 and the process of the panel started in the year 1985-86, therefore, at least 85 posts can be reserved for appointment from Ex-census employee when about 1700 appointments made by General Category. 7. The petitioners specifically emphasised that section 107 of the West - Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 introduced by amending section 106 of the Act. The authority was empowered to issue a notification and/or order in place of making rule. Rule has been framed in the year 1991 but introduced in the year 1996 due to Court's order or orders. However, such rule prescribed for the appointment of ex-census employees under exempted category. 8. They have further stated that it is a well-known principle in view of AIR 1997 SC 776 (State of Bihar & Ors. Rule has been framed in the year 1991 but introduced in the year 1996 due to Court's order or orders. However, such rule prescribed for the appointment of ex-census employees under exempted category. 8. They have further stated that it is a well-known principle in view of AIR 1997 SC 776 (State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Shyam Yadav & Ors.) that excensus employee should be given preference in observation/appointment in State service and they will be entitled to relaxation in age limit and priority in forwarding of names by Employment Exchange. 9. The main contesting respondent is respondent No.5 herein. Their main contention is that all these points are exhaustively taken into considering by a Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court while disposing W.P. No. 19853 (W) of 1997 (Tulsi Charan Mondal & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) a similar points were agitated but not allowed, therefore, such points cannot be agitated now once again because it is well-settled. 10. They have further stated that there cannot be any departure from the rules framed hereunder because of the reason that reservation, if any, made only in respect of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Physically Handicapped and other eligible candidates. Other candidates means 'general category' who do not come within the purview of the reserved candidates. They have strongly opposed that there was any provision of reservation of exempted category under the said Act, 1973 or rules of 1991. 11. I have perused the judgment delivered by a Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in this respect. 12. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by a Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 2nd November, 1998 in disposing W.P. No. 29853 (W) of 1997. The relevant part is interpretation of clause (e) sub-rule (viii) of Rule 9 of 1991 in respect of "other eligible candidates" which prescribed as follows: "(e) After the process as laid down in sub-rule (b) is complete, the Selection Committee shall arrange the names serially down from the top of the list. A panel of such number of candidate as there are vacancies plus 10% of such vacancies shall be prepared. The reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Physically Handicapped persons shall have to be strictly maintained in the panel. The panel shall show separately names of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Physically Handicapped, and other eligible candidates". 13. A panel of such number of candidate as there are vacancies plus 10% of such vacancies shall be prepared. The reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Physically Handicapped persons shall have to be strictly maintained in the panel. The panel shall show separately names of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Physically Handicapped, and other eligible candidates". 13. A Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court interpreted that "the other eligible candidates in the context of the said rule would mean the general category candidates". The State has taken the plea by saying that the exempted candidates of ex-census employees are coming under the purview of the general candidates and the names were referred accordingly and, therefore, there is not separate instruction to be given to the Employment Exchange to send the name as exempted category candidate under ex-census employee. There is no necessity of going into such question on the basis of the observation of the Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court which is also a sheet anchor of the arguments of the State. On the other hand, Supreme Court in delivering the judgment in AIR 1997 SC 776 (State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Shyam Yadav & Ors.) categorically observed that a preference should be given in respect of observation or appointment of the ex-census employee with a relaxation of age limit and priority in forwarding the names of Employment Exchange. Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument it says that the ex-census employees under exempted category are coming under the purview of "other eligible candidates" as general category candidates but priority should be given them in getting services and relaxation of the age limit remains. Therefore, interpretation of the rule is now after the judgment of the Supreme Court become academic. 14. I, therefore, direct the concerned Employment Exchange to make a separate panel of the ex-census employees under the exempted category and forward the names accordingly for the purpose of interview and/or for absorption in the Primary Schools as early as possible but not beyond the period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 15. The question of age bar is already covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court being 1997(1) CLJ 501 (Ratan Kr. Saha & Ors. vs. State & Ors.). 15. The question of age bar is already covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court being 1997(1) CLJ 501 (Ratan Kr. Saha & Ors. vs. State & Ors.). There it was held that the Chairman of the Council will have to consider the case of such persons sympathetically in case of age bar considering the position that there is no fault of the petitioners in this respect. The above judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has a binding effect upon this Court. 16. Therefore, similar principle will also be applicable in the case of the petitioners herein. Moreover, ex-census candidates are not parties to any fraud or sharp practice but victim of the circumstances. Equity speaks in their favour. 17. The writ petitions are thus disposed of accordingly without any order as to casts. This order will have binding effect in respect of all the three writ petitions. 18. If an urgent xeroxed certified copy of the order is applied for, the same be supplied to the applicant within seven days from the date of putting the requisition. Writ petitions are disposed of.