Judgment Satya Brata Sinha, J.: 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner from amongst those persons who have been empanelled in the category of land-losers. It is not disputed that the land belonging to the petitioner's father as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ application, had been acquired and compensation awarded in L.A. Case No. (R & A) 146 of 1973-74. It is also not in dispute that at first the name of the petitioner's elder brother was given for the purpose of appointment. However, as he crossed the age for such appointment, the petitioner's name had been recommended. It is also not in dispute that a list of land-losers has been prepared by the respondents wherein the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 1069. The petitioner contends that there appears to be a dispute as to whether the said list is for the purpose of giving appointment, or not, inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, the respondents have prepared the panel for giving appointment in terms of the said list, but the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition states that the same was merely a computerised list and not a panel for appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements made in paragraph 17 of the writ application have not been specifically traversed, and thus, the same would be deemed to have been admitted. The statements made in the affidavit of the respondents are, inter alia, to the following effect: " . . . . . . It is also further pointed out that after recommendation of statutory body viz., Land Advisory Committee the West Bengal State Electricity Board and thereafter West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited subject to their requirements time to time have been giving appointment among the land-losers/evictees and/or nominees according to their suitability. But there was/is no agreement and/or assurance of appointment for such acquisition for same purpose. But there was/is no agreement and/or assurance of appointment for such acquisition for same purpose. However it appears that the petitioner's name in the computer list in serial No. 1069 which is not exhausted but his name is not recommended by the L.A. Committee and as such the West Bengal State Electricity Board and West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited had/has no power to give appointment directly among the category of land-losers as L.A. Committee is statutory body." 2. Further contention of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents have adopted a pick and choose method as would appear from the newspaper report. The said statement has been made in paragraph 19 of the writ application. Statements made in paragraph 19 of the writ application have been traversed by the respondents in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Damodar Valley Corporation & Anr. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Displaced Employees Union & Ors., reported in 1993 AIR SCW 3258. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the State of West Bengal had issued a Notification dated 30th April, 1990, in terms thereof a Local Advisory Committee has been constituted for the Kolaghat Thermal Power Project of the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited. 4. From the facts aforementioned, it is evident that there exists a policy decision that the land-losers may be provided with employment and there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the State is bound by its own policy decision. Any deviation or departure from the said policy decision could attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the same does not mean that the respondents need not screen the candidates. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the State was entitled to issue the aforementioned Notification dated 30th April 1990, which has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the State by sub-ss. (1), (4) and (5) of s. 17 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is stated at the Bar that the said Notification has been extended from time to time and is still in force. (1), (4) and (5) of s. 17 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is stated at the Bar that the said Notification has been extended from time to time and is still in force. The relevant paragraphs of the said Notification are as under : "The said Committee shall help the W.B.P.D.C.L. in the preparation and finalisation of priority list of the families evicted due to acquisition of land for the K.T.P.P. for employment of one member of each family under W.B.P.D.C.L. (name of one person is to be listed if the ownership of land is changed or distribution is effected after notice has been served) . The said Committee shall reconsider the priority list prepared by the previous Committee and shall prepare revised list if necessary and submit the same to the W.B.P.D.C.L. and Govt. of West Bengal for consideration/ approval." 5. The Supreme Court of India in Calcutta Port Trust vs Deba Prosad Bag, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2137 has clearly' held that it is permissible for the State to appoint such a Screening Committee. The purpose of the Local Advisory Committee constituted in terms of the aforesaid Notification dated 30th April, 1990, has been noticed hereinbefore. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court of India, in my opinion, the contention of the respondents to the effect that the case of the petitioner would be considered by the Local Advisory Committee cannot be brushed aside. In Damodar Valley Corporation Anr. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Displaced Employees Union & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The said decision was rendered to avoid further complications, and having regard to the fact that for the last so many years nothing concrete has happened and the Apex Court wanted to put an end to the litigation. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot lay down any guideline or direct the respondents to implement the same which is within the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court of India in view of Article 142 of the Constitution. It may be mentioned that in the aforementioned decision, the Supreme Court directed that the panel should be frozen and limited to those 78 8 persons. It may be mentioned that in the aforementioned decision, the Supreme Court directed that the panel should be frozen and limited to those 78 8 persons. Moreover, in the said case the question which arose for consideration is as to whether the respondents, who were writ petitioners, whose names did not find place in the panel, were displaced persons or not. 6. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, there is no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner is in the panel. In this view of the matter, this application is disposed of with the following directions. 7. The respondents shall forthwith place the case of the petitioner along with all other eligible candidates before the Local Advisory Committee. The Local Advisory Committee shall consider the cases of all eligible candidates at an early date and preferably within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. The respondents shall proceed to give appointment in terms of its own policy decision upon taking into consideration the recommendations of the Local Advisory Committee as early as possible. I have no doubt in my mind that the Local Advisory Committee as also the respondents being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, shall abide by the aforementioned policy decision as also the said Notification dated 30th April, 1990. As the lands of the petitioner have been acquired as far back in 1973, the respondents must fill up all the existing vacancies forthwith. 8. The application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. Application disposed of with directions.