were engaged purely on temporary basis which is also apparent from appointment letters annexed with the writ application. Learned counsel further argues that said Scheme was for a time bound period, which was wound-up by the Govt. of India w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and subsequently, the State of Jharkhand also decided to close the said Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2001 itself. Learned counsel further submits that after getting advice from the Law Department, the Govt. of Jharkhand has taken a decision not to rehabilitate the part time Instructors of defunct non-formal education scheme as is evident from order dated 24.05.2016, issued from the office of Primary Education Directorate. Learned counsel further argues that the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court on which the petitioners are relying is not applicable in their cases as because, the relief granted by the Patna High Court is restricted to those who approached the Patna High Court. But so far as the cases of the present petitioners are concerned, they never approached either to Patna High Court or to Supreme Court and as such, they cannot claim parity with the order passed by Patna High Court or by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel lastly submits that for the reasons stated above, it is clear that the claim of the petitioners for absorption in government service is not legally maintainable and hence, the instant writ application is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the cases of the petitioners are barred by res-judicata. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court earlier self-same relief, which was rejected by this Court. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned AAG argues that in its earlier order dated 24.11.2017, passed in W.P.(S). No. 2953 of 2012 & other analogous cases, the Court has considered every aspects of the matter and had also considered the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Patna High Court and had clearly observed that they are not applicable in the instant case. The Full Bench of this Court had given a clear verdict and as such, the cases of the petitioners have rightly been rejected and the impugned order is fully justified.
