ORDER 1. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are claiming to be the members of the family being land losers for having given their land by way of acquisition, which was acquired for setting up Boiler Auxiliaries Plant at Ranipet in North Arcot District by BHEL. 2. The petitioners were inspired for making such claim for getting employment in the respondent BHEL, as per the judgment given by this Court in K.Gopu and others vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu in a batch of Writ Petitions starting from W.P.No.4113 of 1998 and the identical claims made by them came to be allowed by this Court by a common judgment dated 13.5.2008. Aggrieved by the direction issued by this Court, the respondent BHEL preferred Writ Appeal Nos.1275 to 1277 of 2008 and batch cases. The batch of Writ Appeals were filed by the persons who were denied relief as well as BHEL, against which directions were issued. All the Writ Appeals were clubbed together and a Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment dated 29.9.2010 dismissed the Writ Appeals, confirming the order passed by this Court. 3. The Division Bench in the above Writ Appeals held that the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court was fully justified and the issue regarding the employment under the displaced land owners' category was pending from 19.8.1981. Therefore, in the interest of both land owners as well as BHEL and to put an end to this issue at the earliest point of time and somehow the matter has been dragged for years together and therefore it was high time that the entire issue has to be resolved examining the individual cases by the Screening Committee appointed by this Court. It was also indicated that while issuing the Notification calling for applications from the displaced land owners, the Screening Committee should make it clear that no more application should be received in respect of land acquisition made by BHEL in terms of G.O.Ms.No.87, Industries Department dated 27.1.1981. It should be the endeavour of the Screening Committee to conclude the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the judgment. 4. It should be the endeavour of the Screening Committee to conclude the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the judgment. 4. It is admitted by the respondent BHEL that subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench, a Screening Committee was constituted as directed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.5.2008. In the said judgment, this Court gave the following directions in paragraphs 43 and 44: "43. Therefore, this Court hereby orders appointment of a Screening Committee comprising of the following persons:- 1. The District Revenue Officer (North Arcot District)- Convenerr 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet 3. The Tahsildar, Wallajah – Secretary 4. The Additional General Manager (HR & C), BHEL, Ranipet 5. The Deputy General Manager (Law), BHEL, Ranipet 6. The Manager (HR), BHEL, Ranipet The meetings of the Screening Committee shall be convened by the District Revenue Officer and its Secretary will be the Tahsildar, Wallajah. If any difference of opinion crops up or any clarification is required, the same may be referred to the District Collector, North Arcot District for his consideration and opinion and be resolved accordingly. 44. The District Collector (North Arcot) is hereby directed to notify the constitution of the Screening Committee and also give adequate publicity to the land losers to appear before the Committee with necessary records. The Committee shall examine the claims of all the writ petitioners (excepting those cases which have been rejected by this Court) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to recommend to BHEL for grant of suitable appointments to the eligible land losers. Till the said exercise is completed, the respondent BHEL cannot proceed with any other appointment to the categories which the land losers are eligible. In case where some of the land oustees are not able to be given employment, the respondent BHEL shall also direct the contractors engaged by them, to employ those persons as was done by the directions approved in the Banwasi Seva Ashram's case (cited supra). " 5. In doing so, this Court while entertaining the claim of genuine land losers, who made their claim at the earliest point of time, dismissed the cases filed by the other persons, who have set out fresh claim. " 5. In doing so, this Court while entertaining the claim of genuine land losers, who made their claim at the earliest point of time, dismissed the cases filed by the other persons, who have set out fresh claim. It is those land losers, who went on appeal and also got their Writ Appeals dismissed. 6. However, notwithstanding the same, the petitioners have once again stake their claim as if they are land losers for BHEL and therefore a member of the family should be granted employment in BHEL. 7. In the Writ Petitions, notice was taken by M/s. Ramasubramaniam Associates, the learned Standing Counsel for BHEL, who also filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents dated 18.2.2013. A chart showing the consideration by the BHEL in respect of the claim made by the petitioners, was also produced by this Court, rejecting their claim. 8. Therefore, in the present cases, whether the contentions raised by the petitioners in assailing the reason for rejection can be countenanced by this Court. Before dealing with the same, it must be noted that while the lands were acquired by the State Government on behalf of BHEL, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.87 Industries Department dated 27.1.1981 and in paragraph 3(b), the Government also stated that in the case of the land owners, who will be completely deprived of their extent of land, atleast one member from each family of such displaced land owners should be given employment in the project. 9. The contention of the petitioners was that the present rejection is in complete violation of G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 27.1.1981. Principles of natural justice was violated in passing the impugned order and it is also opposed to the Doctrine of Legitimate expectation and when properties were utilised by the rural agriculturists, taking over such lands, without providing employment to them was totally unjustified. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the reason for rejection of each of the petitioner has been set out and it is suffice to give the summary of such rejection and it reads as follows: S.No. Village Award Award Name of Name of applicant/ Name of Remarks Recommendations Sirvey No. Dated Awardee (L.O) Employee Staf App.No. No. Father/ NO. possn. possn. Father/ Husband name W.P.No. on Husband Relation to name Relation to L.O L.O Date of Birth & Department, Age (1.1.2012) Designation Service Status Community Qualification 21 SRP 6/82 26.6.1982 Narasimha Manikandan L N.Lakshmanan Employment Rejected Pillai provided to 77 324/ 5.10.1981 Lakshmanan 4153499 son of the Venkatachala land owner as 26150 2,35 Pillai Grandson per details given of 1/9 8.3.1889 & 2008 22.82 yrs. OBC B.Sc. 116 No land for Janarthanan M No land for Rejected this claim the said claim 48 Manickavelu 15.6.91 & 20.55 yrs. OBC VIII Std. 110 No land for Jaishnakar No land for Rejected this claim the said claim 41 Arul LV Son 1.6.92 & 19.58 yrs. OBC X Std. 112 No land for Kumaresan G No land for this claim the said claim Rejected 41 S/o. Ambiga Son 1.6.80 & 31.58 yrs. OBC IV Std. 85 MRP 1/81 26.12.81 Vellu Reddi Kotteshwari L V Settu Employment Rejected provided to 13 187/6 18.5.81 Perumal Reddi W/o.Muniyandi 4159047 the son of the land owner. D’in law Son Also refer appn.No.8,14, & Yrs. F3 BAY 18 & 61 claiming OBC Semi-skilled employment worker death for the same Illiterate lands 86 MRP 2/81 26.12.81 26.12.81 Dakshnamoorthy L V Settu Employment Rejected provided to 14 187/6 18.5.81 18.5.81 Vellu Reddy 4159047 the son of the land owner. Son Son Also refer appn.No.8,13, 3.6.66 & F3 BAY 18 & 61 45.58 yrs. claiming Semi-skilled employment OBC worker death for the same lands III Std. 105 No land for Yuvarani No land for this claim the said claim Rejected 36 D/o.Venkatachalam Daughter 5.6.92 & 19.57 yrs. OBC HSC 107 No land for Munusamy R No land for Rejected this claim the said claim 38 S/o.Mandiammal Son 10.5.88 & 22.64 yrs. OBC X Std. 258 MRP 16/82 30300 Madurai-veeran Nalini M D.Madurai Employment Rejected Veeran provided to 264 129/2, 30424 Doraisami W/o.Kaivanan the land 123/6 415345 owners as per Reddy D/o.Madurai details given. 95/1,2 Self Veeran M Shipping & Daughter Traffic 12.6.84 & 27.55 yrs. Semi-skilled worker OBC in service X Std. 259 MRP 2/82 26.2.82 Rajammal Jayapaul T P.Shamugam Employment Rejected provided to 265 164/2 12.5.81 W/o.Ponnusami Thangavelu 4159926 the son of the land owner as Grandson Son per details given. 9.6.84 & Commercial Ref.app.1- 27.56 yrs. USW claiming OBC employment Death for the same VIII Std. Semi-skilled worker OBC in service X Std. 259 MRP 2/82 26.2.82 Rajammal Jayapaul T P.Shamugam Employment Rejected provided to 265 164/2 12.5.81 W/o.Ponnusami Thangavelu 4159926 the son of the land owner as Grandson Son per details given. 9.6.84 & Commercial Ref.app.1- 27.56 yrs. USW claiming OBC employment Death for the same VIII Std. lands 17 SRP 8/83 19.5.83 Sakunthala Sathi Neela R.Ramchandiran Employment Rejected Ammal provided to 70 325/7 14.8.84 W/o.Gangadharan 4164164 the son of the W/o.Rajagopal land owner as 26150 Naidu D’in law Son per details given. of 6.1.79 & 32.99 yrs. H1 bay 2008 OBC Sr. Technician VIII Std. in service 11. Therefore, it was not the intention of this Court that the order constituting a Committee to consider the claim of land losers will have the benefit of employment for second member in the same family and that will pervert the scheme for employment to one member of each families, who are the land losers. In fact, the Committee constituted by this Court is a larger committee of persons involving the higher officials of the Revenue Department. Only in case of bona find deprivation of land, the question of employment will arise. It is also shocking to find that the persons who never contributed any land for the project has been also seeking employment on the basis that they have lost the land. Unless they satisfy their claim that they are land losers and no member of the family has been given employment, the question of employment assistance does not arise. 12. This Court do not find any case is made out to entertain the Writ Petitions. In fact, in the earlier round of litigations, this Court was conscious of the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.G.M.(HR) P.G. Corpn., of India Limited vs. T.Venkat Reddy and others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 710. In that case, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any scheme for such employment, no such direction can be given. 13. In the earlier cases, this Court also conscious of the fact that whether a direction to consider their claims can be given or any direction for employment and the scheme for employment cannot be expanded. When the matter went before the Division Bench, the Division Bench also was very clear that no fresh claims can be entertained and only existing claim can be considered. When the matter went before the Division Bench, the Division Bench also was very clear that no fresh claims can be entertained and only existing claim can be considered. Since the claims of the petitioners have been rejected for such reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.