JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to absorb her in the permanent district cadre in class III post as an Assistant with effect from 1.1.2002, in accordance with the Government resolution dated 29.12.2001 issued by the respondent no. 2 and to give her all consequential benefits in accordance with law, in the same terms, as extended to her colleagues. 3. The petitioner along with several other employees was employed initially on temporary basis under the scheme of Unemployment Symbolic Allowance. Later on, the scheme was withdrawn by the Government and a decision was taken to absorb all such employees whose services used to be taken ever since inception of the scheme in 1981, till its abolition, in the various departments of the State Government. Services of the petitioner along with several others similarly situated employees was absorbed under the Prosecution Directorate Department on the same scale and the service conditions as applicable to the regular employees of the State Government. Subsequently, a decision was taken to absorb all such employees in the various districts. Pursuant to such decision, a list of such typist cumclerk was prepared and the services of the candidates were distributed to the various districts. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, by a notification no. 17/2002 (AnnexureD/1 to the supplementary counteraffidavit), as many as 10 typistcumclerks were absorbed in the district cadre at Dumka, but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list, although earlier, her services used to be continuously taken in the district of Dumka. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the persons referred to above, were transferred to the district cadre, whereas the petitioner has been left in the State cadre. Demanding equal treatment with the other co-employee whose services were placed in the district cadre, the petitioner had submitted her representation before the concerned authorities of respondents for placing her services in the district cadre at Dumka where she had initially served and where her services used to be engaged continuously during the tenure of her temporary employment. Learned counsel adds that the respondent authorities have not given any reason as to why the petitioner should be denied equal treatment as given to her co-employees. 6. Learned counsel adds that the respondent authorities have not given any reason as to why the petitioner should be denied equal treatment as given to her co-employees. 6. In the counter affidavit as also in the supplementary counter affidavit, respondents would want to explain that as it appears from the pleadings in the writ application, the petitioner has claimed for her absorption in the Government employment, though pursuant to the earlier decision of the Patna High Court, petitioner along with several other temporary employees has been absorbed in the department of the Directorate of Prosecution. 7. As regards the petitioner's claim for her transfer to the district cadre, and the explanation to the notification(AnnexureD/1), counsel for the respondents would want to explain that at the time when the list was prepared vide Annexure D/1, petitioner's services stood already absorbed in the Prosecution Directorate and therefore, her name was not included in the list and as such, there being no question of re-absorption of any of the employee, petitioner's claim for her absorption in the district cadre, cannot be entertained. 8. From the facts and circumstances and the from the rival submissions, it appears that the petitioner's service salready stood absorbed in the Directorate of Prosecution in the State Cadre. There could be no occasion for the petitioner to demand any further absorption in the district cadre. 9. The petitioner has not come forward with any such instance where any person who was already absorbed in the State Cadre, has been given the privilege of being shifted to the district cadre. 10. Considering the above facts and circumstance, I do not find any merit in this writ application. However, this writ application is disposed of with an observation that in the event the State Government takes any such policy decision for extending the benefit of transfer of any class III employee from the State Cadre to the District Cadre, the petitioner shall also be entitled for such claim and upon the representation being filed by the petitioner in this regard, the respondent authorities shall duly consider the same and take an appropriate decision