Letters Patent Appeal No.387 OF 2001 ******* Against the Order dated 18.07.2000 passed in CWJC no. 7748 of 1999. ******* BIHAR STATE TEXT BOOK PUB.CORPN.-------Appellant Versus DILIP KUMAR MISHRA & ORS--------------Respondents ******* FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. RAJEEV ROY FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 : Ms. NAMRATA MISHRA FOR THE STATE : Mr. ANIL KUMAR, GP XI ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. The Daily Wage Employees of the appellant came before this Court contending that for long period of time they are serving the appellant and, accordingly, the appellant in terms of the policy of the Government should consider to absorb them. 2 The writ petition filed for such purpose was disposed of with a direction upon the appellant to consider the case of such employees of the appellant for absorption. The appellant considered the case of such employees and thereupon decided to absorb the private respondents herein as Class-IV employees. After having had worked for approximately three years with the status of the Class-IV employee of the appellant, the private respondents approached this court and contended that instead of absorbing the appellants as Class-IV employees, the appellant ought to have had absorbed them as Class-III employees. The writ petition has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal with a direction upon the appellant to consider absorption of the private respondents in Class-III posts. 3 2. It was contended by the appellant before the writ court, which has been repeated before us, that the private respondents, having had accepted the status of Class-IV employees, placed themselves at the bottom of the seniority list of Class-IV employees and if now the private respondents are considered for being appointed in Class- III posts, seniority list will be disturbed in the establishment of the appellant. By making such submission, it is our considered view, the appellant sought to camouflage the real issue. 3. The facts, which are not in dispute, reveal that the private respondents were engaged on daily wage basis by the appellant for discharging duties of Class-III employees. When the appellant was asked by this court to consider the case of absorption of Daily Wage Employees, the 4 appellant did absorb a large number of Daily Wage Employees, who were performing the duties of Class-III Employees, as Class-III Employees. Despite the private respondents sailing in the same boat, the appellant failed to furnish any reason, far less any cogent reason, why in the matter of absorption, there was a necessity to discriminate in between the private respondents, on the one hand, and those, who were similarly situate to that of the private respondents, who had been absorbed as Class-III employees. Even after the private respondents were absorbed as Class- IV employees, it is not in dispute, that they were made to discharge the duties of Class-III employees. 4. In the situation, as depicted above, the real issue in the writ petition was whether the absorption of the private 5 respondents in Class-IV was at all justified. The writ Court, therefore, once again left the matter by the judgment and order under appeal with the appellant. 5. We find no reason to interfere and, accordingly, while we dismiss the appeal, we hope that reason will prevail upon the appellant and it would do justice and remove hostile and arbitrary discrimination. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) Patna High court, The 25th July, 2008. AAhmad/ (NAFR).