IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1006 of 1995 NAKUL PRASAD SINGH, Son of Garju Singh, resident of Village- Bhimsen, P.S- Amarpur, District- Banka. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Commissioner, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 3. District Magistrate, Banka, District- Banka. ----------- 4 7.11.2008 This writ application was dismissed on 15.10.1996 and thereafter it was restored by this Court to be heard again. Today also nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. This writ application has been filed making prayer therein that the petitioner who is retrenched employee of the Consensus Department should be absorbed in Government service. The petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in CWJC No. 13443 of 1992 passed on 16.12.1993. In the order of this Court it has been stated that the petitioner of CWJC No. 13443 of 1992 was claiming preference for consideration for appointment when a suitable post under the Government was advertised. It was not the case of the petitioner that he was claiming preferential treatment over other retrenched employees. This Court directed that when such a consideration for absorption was to be made 2 by the Government, the age of the petitioner should be relaxed. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned it appears that the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis in the Consensus Department on 9th July, 1981 and he worked till 28.2.1982 i.e. the date on which he was retrenched by the Deputy Director, Consensus operation, Bhagalpur. The petitioner thereafter applied to the Collector for appointment contending that he was retrenched staff of the Consensus Department. The then Collector at Banka appointed the petitioner as a village level worker on 6.4.1994 and noted that the petitioner should join “Establishment Section”. The matter came to be referred to the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur vide letter no. 393 dated 5.7.1994. The Divisional Commissioner after considering the order of this Court with respect to relaxation of age has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in view of this short service the age could not be relaxed. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner has worked in the Consensus Department on a temporary basis and was well 3 aware of the fact that the nature of this job was temporary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not apply against a duly advertised post wherein the question of relaxation of age could have validly been considered and his past services taken into account. It appears that the order of this Court has been mis-interpreted by the then Collector while appointing the petitioner as a village level worker and as such this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the order impuged dated 2.10.1994 passed by the Commissioner setting aside the order of the Collector by which the Collector had allowed the petitioner to join in the “Establishment Section”. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)