JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In all these cases, as common questions of law involved and in some of the cases, common order is under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners, Krishna Nand Shukla and others have preferred writ petition W.P. (S) No. 1251 of 2003 against the order dated 24th February, 2003 passed by respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, whereby and where under, prayer of petitioners has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for a direction on the respondents not to change the final list of candidates, prepared on 24th April, 2001 for appointment under 5th respondent, the Bihar Caustic and Chemicals Limited, Palamau (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and to set aside the list in which names of 6th to 13th respondents have been included for appointment. 3. Petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Shukla has preferred writ petition W.P. (S) No. 1460 of 2003 and petitioner, Akhila Nand Shukla has preferred WP (S) No. 2349 of 2003. Both of them have also challenged the aforesaid order dated 24th February, 2003 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and prayed for similar direction on the respondents not to change the final list of candidates for appointment in the company. 4. Petitioner, Gorakh Nath Shukla has preferred writ petition W.P. (S) No. 5449 of 2003 for commanding upon the respondents- Company to give employment to him in the light of order dated 24th February, 2003 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. In fact, the prayer made in this case is contrary to the prayer made in the aforesaid three writ petitions. From the facts pleaded by the petitioners in these cases, it appears that lands of various raiyats were acquired in pursuance of different land acquisition proceedings in favour of respondents-Company. 5. According to petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Shukla (of W.P. (S) No. 1460 of 2003), the land measuring more than three acres approximately was acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Case No. 10/80-81 from his grand father, namely, Gariba Shukla. The respondents-Company, thereafter, vide letter No. 760/81-82 dated August, 1981 asked his grand father (landloser) to produce relevant documents on 30th August, 1981 for the purpose of employment of his dependent. The case of the petitioner is that his grand father, thereafter, recommended his name for appointment against land losers quota. The respondents-Company, thereafter, vide letter No. 760/81-82 dated August, 1981 asked his grand father (landloser) to produce relevant documents on 30th August, 1981 for the purpose of employment of his dependent. The case of the petitioner is that his grand father, thereafter, recommended his name for appointment against land losers quota. Further according to him, as the State has got 51% share in the Company, certain Government lands were also transferred to the Company for industrial purpose. On the land of the village Dandila Khurd, there was a temple known as Bhairo Sthan. The said land including Bhairo Sthan was also transferred in favour of the Company. The local persons when made serious resentment, a tripartite settlement was made between the Company, State and villagers on 21st September, 2000 followed by another settlement made on 24th April, 2001. Initially it was noticed that in between 20th June, 1992 and 21st September, 2000 only one person of village Dandila Khurd had been given employment, whereas as per the agreement, 14 persons were to be appointed. It was decided that out of 8 posts of Helper available in the power plant 5 persons of village Dandila Khurd should be appointed, as per agreement commonly known as Kcd Bhiro Agreement and rest 3 posts to be filled up from amongst displaced persons/land losers. The villagers of Dandila Khurd having not submitted an agreed list of 14 persons on 24th April, 2001, it was decided that the State Authority will submit a list of 14 persons of village including those whose lands have been acquired. On 27th April, 2001, a list of 14 persons was submitted under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Circle Officer, Block Development Officer and Officer- inCharge, Rehla P.S. and Management of M/s. B.C.C.L. Some of the petitioners and others who were fulfilling the criteria interview letters were issued to them to appear on 16th May, 2001. A meeting was held on 30th May, 2001 in which it was noticed that certain complaints have been received from the villagers of Dandila Khurd against 14 selected candidates. A meeting was held on 30th May, 2001 in which it was noticed that certain complaints have been received from the villagers of Dandila Khurd against 14 selected candidates. Petitioner and some others whose names were not appearing in the list, thereafter, moved before this Court by filing writ petition W.P. (S) No. 2302 of 2001 against the list, which was disposed of on 12th November, 2002 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to consider the case of those petitioners and to pass a reasoned order. 6. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, thereafter, considered the case of the objectors, registered the case as Misc. Case No. 123/2002-03 and by its decision dated 24th February, 2003, while rejected the claim of petitioners of three set writ petitions, name of one of the petitioners, Gorakh Nath Shukla has been recommended for appointment. One of the petitioners while claimed for appointment being dependent of land loser (grand father), rest of the petitioners have also claimed for appointment on the basis of agreement, namely Kal Bhiro Agreement in which it was decided to give employment to villagers. None of the parties could say as to who should be given preference over others in the matter of appointment, if there is more claimant than the vacancies. 7. From the impugned order dated 24th February, 2003, it appears that names of 14 persons were recommended on 27th April, 2001 on the basis of nomination made by the head of the family. Names of such recommended persons are given below : Names of the head of Names of the the family candidate as recommended by family head 1. Sri Ravi Shankar Sri Kishna Shukla Nand Shukla 2. Sri Rameshwar Sri Promod Shukla Kumar Shukla 3. Sri Raj Kishore Sri Sushil Shukla, Sri Surendra Kumar Shukla Shukla 4. Sri Rajendra Shukla Sri Chandra Bhushan Shukla 5. Sri Ram Kishore Sri Sachida- Shukla nand Shukla 6. Sri Ram Das Shukla Sri Aloke Kumar Shukla 7. Sri Harihar Shukla Sri Ajab Narayan Shukla 8. Sri Shital Shukla Sri Bishwas Kumar Shukla 9. Kuber Nath Shukla Sri Debashish Shukla 10. Sri Kamla Kant Sri Brajesh Dubey Kumar Dubey 11. Sri Sahdeo Shukla - Sri Gorkh Nath Shukla 12. Sri Rama Shankar Sri Akhila Nand Shukla Shukla 13. Sri Moti Ram Sri Chandreshwar Ram 14. Sri Md. Rahman Sri Md. Sri Shital Shukla Sri Bishwas Kumar Shukla 9. Kuber Nath Shukla Sri Debashish Shukla 10. Sri Kamla Kant Sri Brajesh Dubey Kumar Dubey 11. Sri Sahdeo Shukla - Sri Gorkh Nath Shukla 12. Sri Rama Shankar Sri Akhila Nand Shukla Shukla 13. Sri Moti Ram Sri Chandreshwar Ram 14. Sri Md. Rahman Sri Md. Mah- Ansari mood Ansari It further appears that after receipt of objection, the names of some other persons have been recommended. 8. From the impugned order, it will be evident that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau had not considered the cases of applicant on merit, Names have not been recommended on the ground of land losers but names have been recommended on the basis of list prepared in consultation with local MLA, Sri Chandra Shekhar Dubey. 9. As the aforesaid order recommending the names of certain persons and rejecting the names of some of the petitioners and others is not based on any reasonable criteria and is arbitrary having been made only on the recommendation of the local MLA, it cannot be up"held. Further as the names of persons cannot be recommended for appointment only on the basis of any agreement reached between some of the villagers, the order dated 24th February, 2003 passed in Misc. Case No. 123/02-03 cannot be upheld, which is, accordingly, set aside. The case is, accordingly, remitted with direction to the respondents to make appointment after following Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State Government having 51% shares, it will be desirable if Article 16 of the Constitution of India is also followed. The respondents should give opportunity first to the dependents of land losers. If one person from a family of land loser has been appointed then preference should be given be to the dependant of a family of land loser from which no person has been given employment. After such appointment of dependants of land losers, if any post is vacant, the respondents may fill up the same from amongst villagers as per Kal Bhiro Agreement but in such case, they will advertise the post in the newspaper laying down minimum qualification and after selection and preparation of merit list, the appointment should be made. 10. All the writ petitions are disposed of, with the aforesaid observations. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.