IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8512 of 2002 ANIL KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04 16.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, a retrenched employee of the 1981 census, is before this Court with a claim to be considered for absorption in pursuance of a policy decision of the State in 1985 to absorb persons like him in State Government service. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 9721 of 2000 with a grievance that persons junior to him in the panel have been absorbed but his case has not been considered. This Court directed that if, the petitioner had been empanelled and persons below him had been given appointment, appropriate orders with regard to him should be passed. Then followed the impugned order dated 15.4.2002 denying him such absorption. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Annexure-7 dated 19.11.2008 of orders for absorption annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit, as an example, cited that the persons named at serial nos. 1, 10 and 17 were junior to him in the panel 2 prepared on 16.3.2001. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the name of the petitioner figures as the last person in the first panel of the proceedings dated 16.3.2001. The persons vis-à-vis whom the petitioner claims discrimination find place in another panel under a different head. Learned counsel for the State further sought to persuade this Court that the petitioner’s name figured in the list of original 262 retrenched employees when his name did not figure in the list of 60 persons short-listed for such appointment from the same as he had not submitted necessary papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply relied heavily on the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9721 of 2000 to urge that his placement at serial no. 27 of the panel was a subsequent event. This Court on bare reading of the impugned order dated 15.4.2002 finds that the grounds sought to be urged on behalf of the parties today before this Court does not find adequate reflection in the impugned order. The impugned order appears to proceed on the premise of a lack of competence for appointment in view of certain subsequent circulars. The matter has, therefore, to be remanded to the District Magistrate, Patna, to take a fresh decision 3 with regard to the petitioner in light of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9721 of 2000 and the proceedings dated 16.3.2001 and the separate panels prepared thereunder. Let such consideration be done and final decision taken within 28th of July, 2009. The writ application stands disposed off. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)