Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 536 (JHR)

Sunand Prasad Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-24

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER The appellant claiming himself to be a displaced person had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3200 of 1993 (R) seeking a direction for appointment in terms of the State Government Guidelines. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2007. The appellant again moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4497 of 2009 seeking a direction for consideration of his candidature for appointment as a displaced person under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. Aggrieved by dismissal of W.P.(S) No. 4497 of 2009 vide order dated 16.08.2013, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, about 7.81 acres of land in Mauja Ichagarh, District Seraikella-Kharsawan belonging to the father of the appellant was acquired in the year 1987-88 for Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. A Vikas Pustika bearing no. 4283 dated 30.05.1987 was issued in the name of the father of the appellant in which the age and qualification of the appellant have been mentioned. A list of eligible persons whose lands were acquired was prepared for appointment by the respondents in the year 1988-1989 and the name of the appellant figured as serial no. 626 in the combined list prepared for all the villages under acquisition. The appellant was not offered appointment on the ground that he was a minor at the relevant time. The appellant approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3200 of 1993 (R) which was dismissed in view of the fact that the appellant had not attained majority at the relevant time. Vide Memo No. 1212 dated 18.09.1993 a scheme was framed by the State Government to give appointment to the displaced persons on a priority basis. The appellant's family falls under the category priority Class-I however, no list in terms of Memo dated 18.09.1993 was prepared and the respondents continued to make appointment from the old list. In the year, 2003 applications were again invited from the displaced persons whose land had been acquired for Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project and the appellant submitted his application on 24.08.2003. However, the appellant was not granted appointment and therefore, he submitted representation on 06.08.2008 to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Additional Director, Rehabilitation Land Acquisition, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project and Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project. Since, the appellant was not offered appointment, he approached the Writ Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 4497 of 2009. 3. However, the appellant was not granted appointment and therefore, he submitted representation on 06.08.2008 to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Additional Director, Rehabilitation Land Acquisition, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project and Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project. Since, the appellant was not offered appointment, he approached the Writ Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 4497 of 2009. 3. In the writ proceeding, a counter-affidavit was filed stating that the father of the present applicant namely, Sri Hiralal Sao was displaced person and he was paid compensation and rehabilitation grant for the land acquired for the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. The appellant was not considered for appointment as he had secured only 353 marks in the matriculation examination whereas, the candidate last selected in the backward class category had secured 430 marks and also for the reason that the appellant was aged about 16 years only at that time. It is further stated that if the appellant applies for self-employment grant amounting to Rs. 75,000/- in prescribed format, the rehabilitation officer would duly sanction the same and the said amount would be given to the appellant. 4. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 holding that the writ petitioner failed to make out a case based upon any legal right for directing the respondents to offer appointment in the displaced persons category. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that though the appellant was a minor in the year 1988-89, he had attained majority when vide Memo dated 18.09.1993 the State Government framed a scheme to give appointment to the displaced persons on the basis of the list prepared on priority basis and therefore, the appellant was entitled for consideration of his claim for appointment in terms of the scheme framed by the State Government. It is submitted that the respondents continued to make illegal appointments from the old list and a wrong statement was made by the respondents in the proceeding of C.W.J.C. No. 3200 of 1993 (R) in as much as, several other persons who had secured lesser marks than the appellant were appointed by the respondents and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that in the year, 2012, the scheme has been modified and the amount of self-employment grant has been enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- however, this has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 requires interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this Court has already held in W.P.(C) No. 6990 of 2002 that if the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land looser cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. It is submitted that the father of the appellant has already received compensation and the appellant was not considered for appointment because at the relevant time he was a minor. 8. Having considered the rival contention advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition by impugned order dated 16.08.2013. By order dated 16.03.2007 the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3200 of 1993 (R) which was preferred by the appellant earlier, was dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of Memo dated 18.09.1993, a scheme was formulated under which the appellant was eligible and by that time he had attained majority, in our view has rightly not been considered by the learned Single Judge in the present proceeding. If the appellant had any grievance with respect to non-consideration of his candidature for appointment as a displaced person under Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project in terms of scheme framed in the year 1993 or 2003, the appellant ought to have challenged the order dated 16.03.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3200 of 1993 (R). Since, the appellant failed to challenge the said order dated 16.03.2007, the issue raised by the appellant in the present proceeding was barred by res judicata and therefore, it could not have been considered by the Writ Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the earlier writ proceeding the respondents made a false statement with respect to ineligibility of the appellant for appointment on the ground of appellant's securing lesser marks. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the earlier writ proceeding the respondents made a false statement with respect to ineligibility of the appellant for appointment on the ground of appellant's securing lesser marks. Without going into such factual dispute, it is to be noted that at the relevant time the appellant was a minor as in the 'Vikas Pustika' dated 30.05.1987, the age of the appellant is reflected as 15 years and therefore, the appellant could not have been considered for appointment in the category of displaced persons under Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on decisions reported in 1995 Supp(2) SCC 225 and 2007 AIR SCW 4511. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the appellant cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. The learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that the writ petitioner failed to establish any legal right based on which a direction can be issued to the respondents for considering the candidature of the appellant for appointment. Since, the land belonging to the appellant's family was acquired in the year, 1987-88 and the compensation and rehabilitation grant etc. have already been received by the father of the appellant and the appellant was not considered for appointment because at the relevant time he was a minor only, we are of the view that after about 25 years no direction can be issued to the respondents for considering the claim of the appellant for appointment as a displaced person under Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. 11. In “Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others.” reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 225, a direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the fact that 247 persons were already identified. In the said case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State Government is not bound to provide employment to any displaced person, much less to provide employment or to ensure preferential treatment in employment to each adult member of displaced families. In “D.G.M. (HR) P.G. Corporation of India Ltd Vs. T. Venkata Reddy & Ors.” reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4511, a direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for according preference to land looser as and when appointments are made for other oustees. In “D.G.M. (HR) P.G. Corporation of India Ltd Vs. T. Venkata Reddy & Ors.” reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4511, a direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for according preference to land looser as and when appointments are made for other oustees. The present is a case entirely different on facts and therefore, we find that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on above judgments, is misplaced. 12. In the result, we find no merit and accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.