JUDGMENT :

1. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. The petitioner has challenged in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order dated 26.07.2017 issued by the Dy. CE/Con/G/Hq, Eastern Railway, Kolkata, whereby his claim for appointment in Railways on the ground of acquisition of land belonging to him for a Railway Project has been rejected.

3. It is the petitioner's case as stated in the writ application that a piece of land, belonging to the petitioner in Mouza Sikandarpur, PS Bounsi, Thana No. 438, appertaing to Khata No. 171 (Old) Khesra No. 2164 (Old) admeasuring 0.35 decimal had been acquired for construction of Mandar Hill to Rampur Halt Railway Line. Acquisition of the said land, according to the petitioner, has taken away his livelihood. According to him, the respondents had assured the villagers that one person of each of the families displaced consequent upon the said acquisition of land will be provided job in the railway in addition to the suitable compensation awarded to them. It is also his case that even Minister of the State for Railways Government of India had made an announcement to the effect that one person of each the families whose land has been acquired by the said Project shall be provided employment in the Railway. The petitioner has relied on news items published in local daily in the year 2000-02 in support of this averment.

4. It is peculiar to note that the petitioner has not disclosed in the writ application as to when his land was acquired.

5. He has then relied on a correspondence made by an organization in the name of 'Railway Prabhavit Kisan Mzadoor Sangthan' dated 24.05.2002 (Annexure-3), whereby a representation was made to the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata for providing employment to one of the members of each of the families displaced because of acquisition of land.

6. He has relied a Division Bench order dated 06.12.2012 of this Court passed in LPA No. 1850 of 2012, whereby, the respondents concerned were directed to provide employment to one member of each of the displaced families which were displaced because of land in the aforesaid purpose in terms of the scheme framed in 1989. The said Division Bench decision of this Court dated 06.12.2012 has attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 11970 of 2013.

7. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ application, giving rise to CWJC No. 4411 of 2017, raising a grievance that despite specific policy for providing job to a member of a displaced family consequent upon acquisition of land, the petitioner, was not being extended such benefits.

8. The writ application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by an order dated 28.06.2017 with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) (Respondent No.3) within two weeks. The Respondent No.5 was, in turn, directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within four months, keeping in mind the said scheme of 1989. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed his representation, which has been disposed of by the impugned order. Following is the reason assigned by Respondent No.5 for rejecting the petitioner's claim :-

"2. The land of the applicant was acquired during the period of 2004-05 and therefore, the case comes within purview of Railway Board's Circular issued under RBE No. 279/89. In the said circular, Railway Board had issued he consolidated clarificatory directives on the basis of Board's previous order no. E(NG)/II/82/rci/95, dated 01.1.83, 09.6.83, 22.3.85 and 11.2.88.

3. As per Para 2.1 of the Railway Board's letter dtd. 01.01.83 (Annexure-1) has given the provision to the individual concerned should have been displaced himself or he should be the son/daughter/wife of a person displaced from land on account of acquisition of the land by the Railway for the Proje