Back
1995 Supreme(Cal) 31
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Satya Brata Sinha, J.
Mohidur Rahaman
vs.
The State of W. B. & Ors.
C.O. No. 18966 (W) of 1993
Decided on : January 20, 1995
The State is bound by its own policy decision and cannot deviate from it without attracting the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the State is entitled to screen candidates and issue a Notification constituting a Local Advisory Committee for this purpose, as per the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 17(1), (4), (5).
Headnote:
EMPLOYMENT - LAND-LOSERS - APPOINTMENT - PREFERENCE - LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CONSTITUTION - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948 - SECTION 17(1), (4), (5) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 12, 142, 226.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to appoint him from among the persons empanelled in the category of land-losers. His father's land was acquired and compensation awarded in 1973-74. His elder brother was initially recommended for appointment, but due to age, the petitioner's name was recommended. A list of land-losers was prepared, with the petitioner's name at serial No. 1069. The petitioner alleged a dispute as to whether the list was for appointment purposes, as the respondents claimed it was a computerised list and not a panel for appointment. The petitioner also alleged a pick and choose method by the respondents based on a newspaper report.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there exists a policy decision that land-losers may be provided with employment and that the State is bound by its own policy decision. Deviation from this policy decision could attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the State is entitled to screen candidates and issue a Notification constituting a Local Advisory Committee for this purpose, as per the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 17(1), (4), (5). The court also noted that the Supreme Court in Calcutta Port Trust vs Deba Prosad Bag held that it is permissible for the State to appoint such a Screening Committee.
Issues: 1. Whether the State can deviate from its policy decision of providing employment to land-losers? 2. Whether the State can constitute a Local Advisory Committee to screen candidates for employment? 3. Whether the petitioner's case should be placed before the Local Advisory Committee for consideration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State is bound by its own policy decision and deviation from it could attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The State is entitled to screen candidates and issue a Notification constituting a Local Advisory Committee for this purpose, as per the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Section 17(1), (4), (5). 3. The petitioner's case should be placed before the Local Advisory Committee for consideration, and the Committee should consider all eligible candidates at an early date. The respondents should proceed to give appointment in terms of its own policy decision upon taking into consideration the recommendations of the Local Advisory Committee as early as possible.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to forthwith place the case of the petitioner along with all other eligible candidates before the Local Advisory Committee. The Local Advisory Committee shall consider the cases of all eligible candidates at an early date and preferably within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. The respondents shall proceed to give appointment in terms of its own policy decision upon taking into consideration the recommendations of the Local Advisory Committee as early as possible.
Satya Brata Sinha, J.:
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner from amongst those persons who have been empanelled in the category of land-losers. It is not disputed that the land belonging to the petitioner's father as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ application, had been acquired and compensation awarded in L.A. Case No. (R & A) 146 of 1973-74. It is also not in dispute that at first the name of the petitioner's elder brother was given for the purpose of appointment. However, as he crossed the age for such appointment, the petitioner's name had been recommended. It is also not in dispute that a list of land-losers has been prepared by the respondents wherein the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 1069. The petitioner contends that there appears to be a dispute as to whether the said list is for the purpose of giving appointment, or not, inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, the respondents have prepared the panel for giving appointment in terms of the said list, but the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition states that the same was merely a computerised list and not a panel for appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements made in paragraph 17 of the writ application have not been specifically traversed, and thus, the same would be deemed to have been admitted. The statements made in the affidavit of the respondents are, inter alia, to the following effect:
" . . . . . . It is also further pointed out that after recommendation of statutory body viz., Land Advisory Committee the West Bengal State Electricity Board and thereafter West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited subject to their requirements time to time have been giving appointment among the land-losers/evictees and/or nominees according to their suitability. But there was/is no agreement and/or assurance of appointment for such acquisition for same purpose.
However it appears that the petitioner's name in the computer list in serial No. 1069 which is not exhausted but his name is not recommended by the L.A. Committee and as such the West Bengal State Electricity Board and West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited had/has no power to give appointment directly among the category of land-losers as L.A. Committee is statutory body."
2. Further contention of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents have adopted a pick and choose method as would appear from the newspaper report. The said statement has been made in paragraph 19 of the writ application. Statements made in paragraph 19 of the writ application have been traversed by the respondents in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Damodar Valley Corporation & Anr. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Displaced Employees Union & Ors., reported in 1993 AIR SCW 3258. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the State of West Bengal had issued a Notification dated 30th April, 1990, in terms thereof a Local Advisory Committee has been constituted for the Kolaghat Thermal Power Project of the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited.
4. From the facts aforementioned, it is evident that there exists a policy decision that the land-losers may be provided with employment and there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the State is bound by its own policy decision. Any deviation or departure from the said policy decision could attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the same does not mean that the respondents need not screen the candidates. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the State was entitled to issue the aforementioned Notification dated 30th April 1990, which has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon
