JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner is the son of a land loser/oustee, whose land, measuring Ac.0.14 decimals and Ac.0.13 decimals (in total Ac.0.27 decimals) appertaining to plots no.734 and 735 respectively, was acquired in the year 1986 by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of establishing LPG Bottling Plant of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) at Chhanpur situated at the outskirt of Balasore Town. The said plant started functioning from the year 1990. Before acquisition of land, a decision had been taken to give appointment to the land losers/their family members in suitable posts in the plant. Some of the land oustees were appointed, while some others were left-out from the purview of employment in IOCL. The left-out land oustees and their family members created a series of agitations demanding jobs leading to stoppage of work in the Bottling Plant. The Government in Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department intervened and convened a meeting on 10.01.1995 with IOCL. In the said meeting, the representatives of the land oustees and the authorities of IOCL, amicably settled the matter that IOCL was going to sanction several posts for its Oil Terminal at Paradeep and the names of land losers of Balasore LPG Bottling Plant, like the petitioner, be sponsored by the Government and the Director, Employment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, so that they would be given appointment under the government policy in the Oil Terminal of IOCL at Paradeep. 2. By letter dated 07.03.1996 at annexure-1, opposite party no.1-Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore intimated opposite party no.8-Director, Employment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar the decision of IOCL to give appointment to the land oustees of Balasore Bottling Plant in the Oil Terminal of IOCL at Paradeep, and requested him to recommend the names for the purpose, as it was not possible to sponsor their names from Employment Exchange, Balasore (since IOCL was seeking names from Employment Exchange, Paradeep), so that they could be interviewed along with local boys. The Director, Employment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, in response to letter dated 07.03.1996 of opposite party no.1, acclaimed the policy of Government rehabilitating the land losers/oustees in LPG Bottling Plant of IOCL at Balasore and suggested for certain formalities to be observed in its letter dated 21.03.1996 annexure-2. The Director, Employment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, in response to letter dated 07.03.1996 of opposite party no.1, acclaimed the policy of Government rehabilitating the land losers/oustees in LPG Bottling Plant of IOCL at Balasore and suggested for certain formalities to be observed in its letter dated 21.03.1996 annexure-2. Pursuant thereto, a list consisting 16 number of bona fide land losers/oustees of LPG Bottling Plant, Balasore was duly prepared, recommended, sponsored and forwarded by opposite party no.1, the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore on 22.06.1996 vide annexure-3 to IOCL for appointment at Paradeep Oil Terminal. In the said list, the petitioner’s name found place at serial no.5 and his name was shown to be registered in the Employment Exchange at Balasore in the year 1988. In response to the same, opposite party no.3-D.G.M., (HR) of IOCL vide annexure-5 dated 30.07.1997 enlisted 13 candidates for getting appointment as and when vacancy would arise. 3. Thereafter, opposite party no.3, D.G.M.(H.R.), by letter dated 05.08.1997 annexure-6 intimated opposite party no.1, the Collector and District Magistrate, Balaosre that only seven land losers had been given appointment at Paradeep Oil Terminal of IOCL, though opposite party no.1, the Collector and District Magistrate, Balaosre had sponsored names and particulars of 16 land losers including the petitioner. Even though the petitioner was called for interview by the authorities of IOCL on three occasions, i.e., on 21.01.1995, 23.03.1995 and 26.08.1996 for appointment in the post of Jr. Operator (Field) in the pay scale of Rs.2,234-Rs.3504/-, no appointment order was issued to him. However, opposite party no.3– D.G.M.(H.R.) vide letter dated 02.01.1998 Annexure-7 indicated that the panel of successful candidates sponsored by opposite party no.1-The Collector and District Magistrate, Balaosre as land losers (including the petitioner) was kept valid. 4. When the matter stood thus, one Trilochan Das, a land loser filed a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.13931 of 1997, in which this Court by order dated 10.11.1997 passed interim order to the effect that any appointment in the IOCL establishment at Paradeep would be subject to result of the writ petition. The said interim order continued till the date of disposal of the writ petition, i.e. 13.11.2006. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation to opposite party no.1 on 09.02.2007. The said interim order continued till the date of disposal of the writ petition, i.e. 13.11.2006. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation to opposite party no.1 on 09.02.2007. Since no action was taken, the petitioner sought for information under Section-6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act, 2005) in Form-A from opposite party no.9-Public Information Officer. 5. Meanwhile, from the office of opposite party no.6-Plant Manager of IOCL, the petitioner came to know that opposite party no.7-Babaji Panda, son of Anadi Charan Panda of Saraswatipur, P.O.-Chhanpur, Via-Khurda in the district of Balasore had been given appointment by IOCL authorities, as the nominee of the genuine land loser, against acquisition of Hal plots no.734 and 735 total measuring Ac.0.27 decimals situated at Village/Mouza-Bampada under Thana No.176. But in reality, the land in question belonged to father of the petitioner, who was ordered to receive compensation amount exclusively in L.A. Misc. Case No.177 of 1991, wherein the father of opposite party no.7 was made party, as the Land Acquisition Collector had wrongly passed the award jointly in the name of several family members of said Anadi Charan Panda. In the said L.A. misc. case, nobody came forward to contest the matter nor was there any objection filed against the claim of the petitioner’s father. Therefore, the petitioner’s father, being exclusively entitled to, was paid the land acquisition compensation amount. As such, neither opposite party no.7-Babaji Panda, nor his father was the loser of the lands in question. 6. Since the petitioner was not supplied with the relevant information and documents, as sought for from the opposite parties under the RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.8913 of 2007 seeking for direction to the Public Information Officer in the office of opposite party no.1 herein, Chief Information Commissioner (Central), New Delhi and Deputy General Manager (HR) of IOCL (opposite party no.3 herein) to dispose of the pending appeal/application. During pendency of the said writ petition, Public Information Officer (ER) and General Manager (ER) of IOCL (opposite party no.9 herein) provided the information sought for by the petitioner, as a consequence of which the writ petition became infructuous and the petitioner withdrew the same. 7. During pendency of the said writ petition, Public Information Officer (ER) and General Manager (ER) of IOCL (opposite party no.9 herein) provided the information sought for by the petitioner, as a consequence of which the writ petition became infructuous and the petitioner withdrew the same. 7. From the information received under the RTI Act, 2005, when the petitioner came to know that the IOCL authorities, without due verification of records, have given appointment to opposite party no.7-Babaji Panda, as the nominee of the loser of the lands in question, in place of the petitioner, by means of this writ petition he has knocked the doors of this Court. 8. Mr. D. Mohanta, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the entitlement of the petitioner to get employment is not in dispute. As such, in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.1, the Collector and District Magistrate, Balaosre, it has been specifically stated that in the list of land losers prepared by the authority, the petitioner’s name was found place at serial no.24. Opposite party no.1 vide his office letter dated 24.06.1996 requested the Director, Employment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar to recommend the names of 16 bonafide land oustees to the District Employment Exchange Officer, Paradeep for sponsoring the same to the IOCL as per the requisition of IOCL dated 21.05.1996. Though the name of the petitioner was in the list and was duly sponsored, he has not been given employment, rather opposite party no.7 was given appointment which is contrary to the scheme of employment. 9. Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate referring to counter affidavit specifically admitted the factum that the petitioner’s name was found place in the list of land losers prepared by opposite party no.1, the Collector and District Magistrate, Balaosre, which was duly forwarded to the Director, Employment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar and recommend as genuine land oustees for sponsoring to the IOCL as per its requisition dated 21.05.1996. It is also stated that in the list of land oustees dated 24.06.1996 recommended by the Collector, Balasore, the name of the petitioner was found place at serial no.5. The letter dated 05.08.1997 issued by the IOCL reveals that a panel of 13 land losers was empanelled as against 16 candidates furnished by opposite party no.1 vide his office letter dated 24.06.1996. The letter dated 05.08.1997 issued by the IOCL reveals that a panel of 13 land losers was empanelled as against 16 candidates furnished by opposite party no.1 vide his office letter dated 24.06.1996. The IOCL vide its letter dated 30.07.1997 disclosed that seven candidates were given appointment out of 13, in which the name of the petitioner found place at serial no.10 of the list, which has been admitted by the IOCL. In spite of request of the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore to the IOCL from time to time to provide employment to the land losers, the IOCL did not pay any heed to the same and finally the IOCL vide its letter dated 11.09.2000 expressed its inability to provide employment to the land losers due to lot of problems in redeployment of workmen in view of the automation at their various plant terminals and locations. The Collector, Balasore has also taken necessary steps from time to time in the matter of appointment of the land oustees, but the IOCL by giving employment to a few candidates has slept over the matter in respect of other candidates. 10. Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the IOCL admitted the fact that the lands had been acquired by the Government for establishment of LPG Bottling Plant by the IOCL in Village Bamapada, Chhanpur in the district of Balasore. He, however, contended that there was no official Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme or agreement to provide job in exchange of land by IOCL, as claimed by the petitioner. Jobs were provided only to the extent required by IOCL as per vacancy to the local candidates, as sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Balasore and some of these candidates were appointed from the land losers. Even though the petitioner claimed for appointment as per the letter dated 07.03.1996 issued by the Collector, Balasore, the IOCL had taken steps by following certain procedures. It is the admitted fact that as no vacancy was available at Balasore Bottling Plant, the selected candidates of select list dated 30.07.1997 from serial no.1 to 7 were given appointment at Paradeep Oil Terminal. As such, the panel list dated 30.07.1997 is not valid as the duration of panel was for two years, which is evident from letter dated 04.08.1995 of the IOCL. Even though the petitioner appeared in the interview held on 12.04.1995 to 15.04.1995 for the post of Jr. As such, the panel list dated 30.07.1997 is not valid as the duration of panel was for two years, which is evident from letter dated 04.08.1995 of the IOCL. Even though the petitioner appeared in the interview held on 12.04.1995 to 15.04.1995 for the post of Jr. Operator (Field) at Balasore Bottling Plant, he could not be empanelled, as he was not found suitable. But, it is admitted that in the interview dated 25/26/27.09.1996 for the post of Jr. Operator (Field) at Paradeep Oil Terminal, the petitioner was found suitable and empanelled in the select list at Serial no.23, out of which 18 candidates were given appointment as per the vacancy available at that point of time. So far as appointment of opposite party no.7 is concerned, his name was duly sponsored and he passed the interview/trade test and fulfilled other required conditions. In the year 1989, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored presumably on the ground of under age as the date of birth of the petitioner then was 06.03.1971. As such, now the petitioner is over age and as per the policy of IOCL, the maximum age limit is 30 years. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel appearing for IOCL has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Subrat Kumar Behera v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, 2017 (1) OLR 418 and Civil Misc. W.P. No. 29679 of 1999 (Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate and others) decided on 08.10.2004 by the Allahabad High Court. 11. Heard Mr. D. Mohanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel for IOCL, and perused the records. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 12. Undisputedly, the land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals in plot.734 and Ac.0.13 decimals in plot no.735 (in total Ac.0.27 decimals) had been acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of establishing LPG Bottling Plant of IOCL at Chhanpur, Balasore. 12. Undisputedly, the land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals in plot.734 and Ac.0.13 decimals in plot no.735 (in total Ac.0.27 decimals) had been acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of establishing LPG Bottling Plant of IOCL at Chhanpur, Balasore. The name of the petitioner, being a land oustee, was sponsored by opposite party no.1, the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore, but could not be given appointment though he was selected by the authority by following due procedure of selection. Even though father of the petitioner received compensation for acquisition of his land, but on the basis of the discussion held between the authorities of the Government and the IOCL that one of the family members of the land oustee would get appointment at the Bottling Plant of IOCL has not been followed. As such, the genuine claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered, but opposite party no.7 has been given appointment. Nothing has been brought on record to show why the petitioner was deprived of getting such appointment, to which he is otherwise entitled to, at par with counterpart land oustee for establishment of Bottling Plant by IOCL. 13. As a land oustee, the petitioner has every reason to believe that he is entitled to get compassionate appointment to earn his livelihood and to live with human dignity in consonance with Article-21 of the Constitution of India. For setting up of an industry whatever the landed property the petitioner had, the same was acquired by the State Government. Consequentially, the petitioner has been deprived of earning his livelihood, which affects his right to live enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, by mere giving compensation amount for acquisition of land, it does not suffice the sustenance of the family in question. The avowed objective of giving compassionate appointment rests on a laudable benefit to be given to the land oustees, who is deprived of getting earning throughout his life. By giving mere appointment, it only gives sustenance of the family so as to find out wage and means to survive with the source of income provided by such employment. The avowed objective of giving compassionate appointment rests on a laudable benefit to be given to the land oustees, who is deprived of getting earning throughout his life. By giving mere appointment, it only gives sustenance of the family so as to find out wage and means to survive with the source of income provided by such employment. The objective of compassionate appointment is frustrated by the IOCL for whom the land was acquired making the family jobless, homeless moving around with begging bowl for his sustenance which is not the objective of constitutional mandate behind the acquisition of land for the purpose of establishment of industry. India is an agricultural country and most of the people depend upon the agriculture. As such, by acquiring agricultural land for setting up of industry, if adequate compensation is not being paid by monetarily and job to the land oustees, it will cause prejudice to the normal existence of the family concerned. If similarly situated persons have been given appointment, the denial of same to the petitioner, for some plea or the other as taken in the counter affidavit, amounts to discrimination. 14. Reliance placed on Subrat Kumar Behera (supra) is completely a different case altogether. That case dealt with the matter in which the validity period of the select list was expired and the petitioner therein sought for appointment on the strength of empanelment after the expiry of the validity period. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the present case. 15. Similarly, the Full Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ravindra Kumar (supra), on which much reliance has been placed, has been decided on the facts and circumstances of that case only, which are distinguishable from the present case. 16. Since the petitioner’s name was found place in the select list of giving compassionate appointment as a land loser and similarly situated persons having been provided with employment, the petitioner has been deprived of, it clearly violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. Since the petitioner’s name was found place in the select list of giving compassionate appointment as a land loser and similarly situated persons having been provided with employment, the petitioner has been deprived of, it clearly violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that opposite party no.3 should reconsider the matter for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner as a land oustee in view of recommendation made by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Balasore and Director, Employment, Orissa pursuant to which selection was made and the petitioner’s name found place in the list prepared by the IOCL, in any vacancy available befitting his qualification at par with his counterparts as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost.