JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer to consider his case for appointment in view of the land loser scheme and the case of the petitioner was considered but later on refused on medical ground. Factual Matrix 2. It is the case of the petitioner that for mining purposes 2.99 Acres of agricultural lands, which was the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family had been acquired by the respondents company, namely, M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited for its mining purposes. Acquisition of lands was done on the basis of an agreement entered into by and between the father and uncle of the petitioner as well as the competent authorities of the respondents company on 30th day of January, 1975. In terms of the agreement and in terms of the policy of the lands losers 2 (two) employments were to be provided to the family members of both the family as because at that relevant time there was a policy, which generally was called as the Land Loser Policy, wherein one employment was to be provided to the family or its dependant for every one acre of land but that was used/ utilized/purchased by the respondents company. In view of the police decision, the petitioner along with his cousin Sudeep Kumar Goswami was considered for employment. However, after medical check up, the petitioner was found to be medically unfit for duties in the coal mines. As a result in the meeting held on 7.6.1993 at Santoria in the functional Director's meeting the case for employment of this petitioner was rejected by the authorities of the respondents company and the petitioner was declared unfit for employment by the Apex Medical Board held on 12.2.1998. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after being declared medically unfit he approached S.S.K.M. Hospital at Kolkata which is one of the premium hospital in Eastern India and a thorough treatment and investigation was conducted. The petitioner was finally declared fit for duties in the coal mines. In terms thereof the petitioner represented again before the competent authorities of the respondents company to reconsider his case for employment. However, the same has not been considered till date and as such the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. The petitioner was finally declared fit for duties in the coal mines. In terms thereof the petitioner represented again before the competent authorities of the respondents company to reconsider his case for employment. However, the same has not been considered till date and as such the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Tewari argues that in the past 2 (two) employments were approved in favour of Sri Sudhanshu Goswami and Sri Sudip Kumar Goswami by the F.D.'s in its meeting held on 7.6.93 against 2.99 acres of land under Land Loser Scheme in 1:1 ratio for land taken at Mugma Area previously Kapasara Area. Subsequently, Sri Goswami has been declared 'Unfit for employment by the Apex Medical Board held on 12.2.1998. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari argues that after rejection of his case by the Medical Board he approached S.S.K.M. Hospital and medical report/prescription dated 11th March, 2002 issued by the said Hospital has been furnished which clearly shows 'The patient is fit for any type duty' In view of the issuance of that certificate the petitioner is entitled for reconsideration of his case and re-medical examination. 6. Learned Counsel Mr. Tewari urges that the respondent-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the petitioner and have relied on a scheme/policy decision which was not prevalent at the time of consideration. 7. On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed. 8. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned Counsel for the respondents refers to paragraph No. 7 and 9 of the counter-affidavit which is quoted here-in-below: “17. That it is the case of the Eastern Coalfields Limited that the contention made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is denied. It is submitted that initially an agreement was entered in between the parties on 30.01.1975 with respect to 2.99 Acres of Land. From perusal of Clause 11 of the said Agreement dated 30.01.1975 it would be evident that the Second Part agreed to give employment to the First Part and his dependants according to the availability and suitablity of employment. It is respectfully submitted that there is no term and condition that two employments shall be given to the First Party to the said Agreement dated 30.01.1975. It is respectfully submitted that there is no term and condition that two employments shall be given to the First Party to the said Agreement dated 30.01.1975. Further it is respectfully submitted that if there is any breach of the term and condition of the said agreement in question than the proper forum for claiming relief is competent Civil Court and no relief can be claimed under exercise of Jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further case of the Eastern Coalfields Limited that subsequently the aforesaid land was purchased by Eastern Coalfields Limited by three separate Sale Deeds. (i) Vide Sale Deed No.16231 dated 11.11.1993 Eastern Coalfields Limited purchased 0.99 acres of land from Bhubaneshwari Goswami [Wife of Late Jiban Goswami], Sridhar Goswami [Son of Late JC Goswami] & Sudhanshu Goswami [Son of Late JC Goswami] two employments were sanctioned the case of the petitioner. (ii) Further vide Sale Deed No.16229 dated 11.11.1993 Eastern Coalfields Limited purchased 1 acre of land from Sri Subhash Chandra Goswami [Son of Late Jiban Chandra Goswami]. (iii) Sri Probash Chandra Goswami had given power of attorney vide No.1280 of 1993. Further vide Deed No.16230 dated 11.11.1993 1 acre of land has been purchased by ECL. In the said Sale Deeds there was no condition to provide two employments. That it is further case of Eastern Coalfields Limited that an amount of Rs.29,900/-has been paid. It is further case of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner for his employment was rejected on the ground that he was declared medically unfit for employment under ECL by the Medical Examination Board in Mugma Area as he is suffering “Organic Valvular Heart Decease”. This was further confirmed by the Review Board in C.H.Kalla and Apex Medical Board, ECL HQ Sanctoria vide Letter No.ECL/C-5(D)/E/AMB/2002/262 dated 21.10.2002 of Dr. S.K.Saha, Secretary, Apex Medical Board, CMS's Office. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on account of the following reasons that the petitioner was suffering Organic Valvular Heart Decease that was declared by initial Medical Board Examination in Mugma Area and that was confirmed by the Review Board in CH Kalla and Apex Medical Board, ECL [HQ], Sanctoria and thus there is no question of any further review. Thus the case of the petitioner was regretted by the competent authority of ECL vide letter No.ECL/GM/MA/P-VI(64)/02/1836 dated 1/2. 11.2002. It is further submitted that already one employment has been given to Sri Sudip Goswami [Cousin of petitioner] against the land measuring 2.99 Acres. “9. That it is submitted that the case of the petitioner has been further regretted by Letter No.ECL/CGM/MA/08/1337 Dated 4/18.06.2008, wherein it has been stated that as per the present norms of the Company an employment can be provided to a land owner in the ratio of 2:1. Thus at this stage the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as per the existing Land Loser Policy of ECL. This letter has not been challenged by the petitioner.” 10. In view of the specific stand of the respondent-authorities the learned Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of the fact that he has been declared medically unfit by the Apex Medical Board and in view of the policy decision a policy has been floated vide letter No.ECL/CGM/MA/08/1337 dated 4/18.06.2008 and in view of that policy the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and as such rightly it has been rejected. 11. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the Apex Medical Board was held in the year 12.2.1998 the certificate procured by the petitioner is of 11th March, 2002 of S.S.K.M. Hospital. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that after submission of the said certificate and medical documents Medical Board was held. The submission itself is misconceived in view of the fact that annexure-9 of the counter-affidavit is very clear. The policy decision at the time of consideration has to be considered. I am of the opinion that, the policy which was in vogue was taken into consideration and the petitioner was appointed but only on the ground that he was medically unfit his case was rejected. The policy decision at the time of consideration has to be considered. I am of the opinion that, the policy which was in vogue was taken into consideration and the petitioner was appointed but only on the ground that he was medically unfit his case was rejected. Now it is not open for the respondent-authorities to come with fresh ground that the policy itself shows that no appointment can be provided to land owner in the ratio of 1:1 rather it has to be provided 2:1. The said submission of the learned counsel of the respondent cannot be accepted in view of the settled principle of law. 12. In view of the certificate procured by the petitioner from competent Hospital of Calcultta and in view of the fact that the same was recommended by the Sr. E.O. (Annexure-2) but no decision has been taken till date on the said recommendation, I direct the respondent No.3 & 4 to re-assess the certificates issued by the S.S.K.M. Hospital Calcutta and if the petitioner is found medically fit, the case of the petitioner has to be considered for providing employment. The entire exercise has to be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed.