JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) :- I.A. No. 7920 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 470 of 2018 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of 110 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. In view of the statements made in the application and having been satisfied of the cause shown by the appellants, I.A. No. 7920 of 2018 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 234 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 240 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 250 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 267 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 294 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 295 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 301 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 470 of 2018 3. A common issue is involved in all these Letters Patent Appeal and as such, these are taken together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 4. All the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the common judgment pronounced on 13.10.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 2924 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 31 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 1206 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 1435 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 2214 of 2010 with W.P. (S) No. 3351 of 2010 and W.P. (S) No. 4805 of 2010 by which the writ Court has quashed the impugned letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009, issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner, Office of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and further directed the appellant-State of Jharkhand to consider the case of the respondents along with others taking into consideration the vacancy position and also in view of the fact that persons below the respondents in panel list, have been considered for appointment. 5. Before the writ Court, the petitioners (respondents herein) have prayed for a direction to the respondents (appellants herein) to consider their case and appoint/absorb them on Class-III posts forthwith as the petitioners (respondents herein) are retrenched employees of 1991 census and they are senior in panel of 1991 census employees to those persons who have been given appointment on Class-III post and also in view of the fact that the petitioners (respondents herein) possess requisites qualification for being appointed/absorbed on Class-III posts and vacancies still exist for their appointments/absorption. 6. Further, in one of the writ petition, petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter no. 6. Further, in one of the writ petition, petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009, issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner, Office of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi whereby application of the petitioner (respondent herein) for his absorption on Class-III post from Class-IV post, has been arbitrarily rejected. 7. The brief facts required for adjudication of these Letters Patent Appeals are that in the year 1991, respondents were appointed in the Census Directorate as Compiler, Checker and Supervisor i.e. Class-III posts on a consolidated salary basis. The respondents were Graduates at the relevant time of their appointments. A panel was also prepared in the year 1991 in which name of the respondents stood at different serial numbers in the said panel list. All the respondents and few others were retrenched in the year 1991 itself. Upon such retrenchment and considering grievances of all such retrenched employees, a direction was issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for their absorption by way of adjustment of the employees of the 1991 Census and this direction was conveyed to the concerned Deputy Commissioners of all the districts vide letter dated 06.11.2003. Consequent upon such directions, the exercise to assess the vacancies both in Class-III and Class-IV posts was completed and the vacancies were assessed as per roster. However, when absorption of the retrenched employees was taken up, pick and choose method was adopted by giving preference to some candidates who were even juniors to the respondents and had been allotted Class-III posts on which they had been appointed whereas respondents were offered Class-IV posts. Grievance of the respondents is that though they possessed requisite qualifications for their appointment on Class-III posts and their names appeared in the panel above the name of persons who had been allotted Class-III posts, the respondents had been denied the offer for Class-III posts. 8. The learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the respondents were appointed in the year 1991 for compilation of data of Census for the period of three months only and thereafter they were retrenched. However, upon the application of the respondents, the appellants took decision to absorb on Class-III and Class-IV posts only as per availability of post in different districts. As per Government Notification No. 1341/Estd. However, upon the application of the respondents, the appellants took decision to absorb on Class-III and Class-IV posts only as per availability of post in different districts. As per Government Notification No. 1341/Estd. dated 08.11.2006, it has clearly been mentioned that once the retrenched employees were adjusted in the service of any grade, they cannot claim for appointment to any higher post. 9. The learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that the panel which was claimed to be prepared by the Census Directorate for contract appointment of the Census Employees for a limited short period in the year 1991 and cannot be considered as a gradation panel list for the present appointment of the retrenched employees. Though the Government Letter No. 1326 dated 10.04.2006, refers about the panel list of 1991, the same letter in its last but one paragraph refers this panel list in the context with the certified list of the concerned districts from Census Directorate, Patna as the panel list. This clearly exhibits the fact that the said list was simply a general list of the census contract employees which cannot be construed to be a panel/merit list. The said absorption, as per the list, was done on the basis of the dire necessity. The said list was never considered as a merit/panel list and was prepared merely for the purpose of absorption once. 10. The learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that the respondents had voluntarily accepted the posting on the Class-IV, therefore, as per the Government Notification, their absorption for Class-III post cannot be allowed and that too, after a lapse of 19 years of formulation of the consolidated list. It is further submitted that after constitution of the Staff Selection Commission, which became effective from 27.03.2010, all the appointment on the Class-III posts can only be made through the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 11. The learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-State and submitted that the writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009 and directed the appellant-State to consider the case of the respondents along with others taking into consideration the vacancy position and also in view of the fact that persons below the respondents in panel list, have been considered for appointment. 12. 426, dated 18.06.2009 and directed the appellant-State to consider the case of the respondents along with others taking into consideration the vacancy position and also in view of the fact that persons below the respondents in panel list, have been considered for appointment. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on records, it appears that the writ Court has directed the appellant-State to consider the case of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) along with others taking into consideration the vacancy position and also in view of the fact that persons below the petitioners (respondents herein) in panel list, have been considered for appointment. 13. However, we are of the considered view that the writ Court has not considered the object behind the Scheme under which the respondents have been appointed. The respondents are the employees of 1991 Census, who were initially appointed temporarily for three months for the Census purpose and when the work of the Census was over, they were retrenched. However, the appellant-State taking the compassionate view came with a Scheme in the year 2006 to adjust the Census employees of 1991 Census on the basis of compassionate appointment. 14. We also agree with the submission of the appellant-State that after constitution of Staff Selection Commission, which became effective from 27.03.2010, all the appointment on the Class-III post can only be made through the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 15. So far claim of the respondents that juniors to them in panel list have been given Class-III post while these respondents have been offered Class-IV post, in spite of having all the requisite qualifications, we are with the agreement of the appellant’s pleadings that list of the Census employee of 1991 was not a gradation list based on the merit and appointment has been offered as per availability of the post in the particular district. 16. The issue in the case in hand is no more res integra and a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand reported in (2019) 1 JBCJ 113 seems to have settled the issue, observing as under: “7. 16. The issue in the case in hand is no more res integra and a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand reported in (2019) 1 JBCJ 113 seems to have settled the issue, observing as under: “7. After lapse of several years i.e. more than period of one decade, a policy was floated by the State of Jharkhand dated 5th August, 2006, which is at Annexure-9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal for absorption of such employees. In fact, this policy also renders counter to the observation made in paragraph 17 of the aforesaid decision. Nonetheless, looking to the hardship of unemployed persons and as a compassionate measure, the Scheme was floated with a view to accommodate retrenched employees, who were Compilers/Census Operators in the year 1991, they were employed in the month of October 2006. 8. This appellant (original petitioner) expects that as he was employed for few months in the year 1991 as a Class-III employee, now after lapse of more than one and half decade, he should be absorbed as a Class-III employee. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that- (a) There is no right vested in the retrenched employee, as stated in paragraph 17 of the decision reported in (1997) 2 SCC 507 . (b) In fact, Compilers/Census Operators are meant only for census. The work was temporary in nature. They were retrenched and retrenchment has been held as a valid one. After lapse of one and half decade, there is no right vested in this appellant to be absorbed in the Government Department. (c) This appellant (original petitioner) has already been appointed as Class-IV employee and he has accepted the said appointment and, therefore, now he cannot be re-employed as Class-III employee. 18. In view of the aforesaid decisions and also keeping in mind paragraph 17 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 2 SCC 507 , this appellant has no right to be appointed as Class-III employee, when his services were already retrenched in the year 1992, validly. This appellant is already given Class-IV employment in the year 1996, now he cannot claim Class-III employment. This appellant is already given Class-IV employment in the year 1996, now he cannot claim Class-III employment. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P. (S) No. 5014 of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2016. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.” 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find substance in the plea put forth on behalf of appellant-State, and accordingly, the writ Court’s order dated 13th October 2017 is set aside. 18. L.P.A. No. 234 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 240 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 250 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 267 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 294 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 295 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 301 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 470 of 2018 are allowed. 19. I.A. No. 4269 of 2018 filed in L.P.A. No. 240 of 2018, I.A. No. 4371 of 2018 filed in L.P.A. No. 250 of 2018, I.A. No. 4649 of 2018 filed in L.P.A. No. 267 of 2018, I.A. No. 4774 of 2018 filed in L.P.A. No. 294 of 2018, I.A. No. 4782 of 2018 filed in L.P.A. No. 295 of 2018, I.A. No. 5220 of 2018 filed in L.P.A. No. 301 of 2018 and I.A. No. 7921 of 2018 filed in L.P.A. No. 470 of 2018, which have been filed for stay, stand disposed of.