ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners are stated to be Seasonal Employees engaged for spraying DDT under the National Malaria Eradication Programme. They are aggrieved by the final panel dated 4.7.2011 prepared at Aurangabad for absorption/appointment as Class IV employees in the Aurangabad District Administration. 3. It is submitted that in the earlier provisional panel they had been given due credit for the man days that they had worked as seasonal employees. They were within serial 100 of the select list. In the final panel they have been pushed down much below in the select list virtually denied credit for their working man days in seasonal capacity. They now stand to loose any opportunity to be considered for such appointment/absorption. 4. Advertisement no. 1 of 2009 was published on 11.11.2009 inviting applications on Class IV posts from the eligible. Item 6 of the same provided for weightage to daily wagers. The petitioners are stated to have applied in response to the same leading to preparation of the panel. 5. The core of the controversy lies in interpretation of the policy decision dated 29.6.2011 issued by the Department of General Administration giving directions for the manner in which the panel was to be prepared. 6. Under the policy, first preference has to be given to such daily wagers who worked against sanctioned vacant posts for which the District Magistrate was the Selecting Authority. The second preference was to be given to those who had worked for 240 days. This obviously has to be read as distinct from the issue of those who may have worked against the vacant sanctioned posts. The third preference was to be given to persons appointed in the connected offices of the Collectorate and its allied offices based on the number of man days. The fourth category was to consist of “Line Department” employees who have worked like daily wagers. Their man days were also required to be taken into consideration. In the case of equivalence for the period of work/man days those with a higher age were to be given preference. Amongst those who did not have any experience preference was to be given on basis of higher age. 7. The decision dated 29.6.2011 is a policy matter. Their man days were also required to be taken into consideration. In the case of equivalence for the period of work/man days those with a higher age were to be given preference. Amongst those who did not have any experience preference was to be given on basis of higher age. 7. The decision dated 29.6.2011 is a policy matter. There shall be no occasion for the Court to interfere with the same unless it be of the opinion that it was arbitrary, irrational, illogical and that no reasonable person could have framed such a policy and criteria for differentiation as mentioned therein. The Court finds it difficult to arrive at any such conclusion. The classification of daily wagers who may have worked against sanctioned vacant posts, those who may have worked only for 240 days and those who may have worked in any other capacity including seasonal, forming separate categories with different considerations for them cannot be faulted with even on the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a letter dated 17.1.2012 issued by the Director in Chief, Health Services, directing that Seasonal Employees like the petitioners be considered for appropriate placement in the panel keeping in mind their seniority to be reckoned in accordance with the policy decision. He submits that this policy decision is none other than dated 29.6.2011. The respondents have therefore erred in completely ignoring the benefit of their man days for which the petitioners have worked as Seasonal Employees and not giving them due credit for it by appropriate placement in the panel. 9. The counter affidavit of the respondents lays much emphasis on the question whether the appointment was made at the district level or the State level for such categorization. Contending that the petitioners belong to the State level it is urged that they cannot be placed in Clause 2(1) of the policy. 10. The Court does not consider the issue very relevant. It has already been held that the policy dated 29.6.2011 validly differentiated between the daily wagers and seasonal employees. The language of the policy is clear even in Clause 2(4) and admits of no ambiguity. It states in no uncertain terms that those in the “Line Department” are also required to be given credit for the days/man days that they may have worked. The language of the policy is clear even in Clause 2(4) and admits of no ambiguity. It states in no uncertain terms that those in the “Line Department” are also required to be given credit for the days/man days that they may have worked. A seasonal employee does not work against a sanctioned vacant post. The stand of the State that they are not district level appointments is therefore misconceived. 11. The respondents do not appear correct in their counter affidavit that the petitioners are not entitled to count their man days spent in the seasonal capacity. The letter dated 17.1.2012 is fully in consonance with the policy. 12. The Court therefore holds that the petitioners are entitled to be given due credit for the number of days/man days that they may have worked in the seasonal capacity and are required to be given their appropriate place in the panel accordingly. 13. Needless to state that the policy has to be read along with letter of the Chief Secretary dated 28.12.2011 opining in Clause 3 that any panel at the district level on Class IV was to be prepared irrespective of the Appointing Authority. 14. Before parting with the case, the Court considers it proper to observed that if the panel has been prepared on 4.7.2011, barring those who may have raised a controversy during the life of the panel, which is clearly speaking one year, the panel shall cease to exist after one year. 15. Let the respondents now consider the candidature of the petitioners giving them due credit for the days/man days that they may have worked as seasonal employees. 16. The writ application is allowed.