IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Md. Ahsanullah Khan, Son of Late Hamidulla Khan – Respondent
L.P.A. No.529 of 2019
Decided on : 22-12-2021
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14, 166 - Land Acquired - Government Policy - Employment - Claim For Regular Appointment - State Government came out with a plan to construct Katri Dam for which land was acquired from local people including land of writ petitioner - Government framed out a policy which provides employment to one member of displaced family - Petitioner, subsequently applied for appointment on Class-III/IV post which was forwarded concerned respondent authorities but no decision was taken a letter was issued from office of respondent No.2 - Petitioner, however, continued to work on temporary basis but his claim for regular appointment had although forwarded before competent authority but no decision was taken - Petitioner had regularly approached before authorities but when no action was taken, writ petitioner approached before this Court - Held, It is a case of exception in which land of writ petitioner has been acquired way back in year but he has been offered temporary appointment while other similarly situated persons like Ram Sewak Mahto and Mithilesh Kumar Tiwary have been appointed on basis of order passed by this Court by invoking jurisdiction of this Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India and one Sri Kamleshwar Rana has been appointed on basis of assurance of Legislative Assembly of State, this Court cannot be a mute expectator in exercising power conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India - If writ petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination that too without any reason since time and again this Court has passed judicial orders but no reason has been explained for differentiating case of Ram Sewak Mahto, Sri Kamleshwar Rana and Mithilesh Kumar Tiwary with case of writ petitioner – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever about any audio and video quality.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi are present in-person before this Court through video conferencing mode.
3. Heard the parties.
4. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 20.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5132 of 2016 whereby and whereunder while allowing the writ petition direction has been issued upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for employment and also to come out with an advertisement as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order with a further direction that the writ petitioner is free to make application as and when the advertisement is floated and the respondents shall consider for giving relaxation of age and weightage of marks as has been considered in other cases and if he comes under the zone of consideration as per prevailing policy, suitable order shall be passed, in accordance with law.
5. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated herein reads as hereunder:
The State Government came out with a plan to construct Katri Dam for which the land was acquired from the local people including the land of the writ petitioner. The Government framed out a policy which provides employment to one member of displaced family. The writ petitioner applied for appointment in lieu of land, however, due non-employment on regular basis during the relevant time the writ petitioner was provided with temporary employment with a recommendation for regular employment vide Letter No.1423 dated 20.09.2002.
The writ petitioner, subsequently applied for appointment on Class-III/IV post which was forwarded concerned respondent authorities but no decision was taken rather only on 23.01.2004 a letter was issued from the office of respondent No.2, The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand directing the respondent No.3, The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand to forward the application of the writ petitioner and other displaced people so that appropriate action may be taken in pursuance of Government policy.
The writ petitioner, however, continued to work on temporary basis but his claim for regular appointment had although forwarded before the competent authority but no decision was taken. Subsequently, the matter was placed before the respondent authorities as would be evident from the letter No.1801 dated 03.08.2010, pursuant thereto, a letter was issued on 18.04.2011 asking certain information regarding employment of the writ petitioner which was replied vide letter No.383 dated 04.05.2011, therefore, the respondent No.3 subsequently issued a letter on 02.07.2011 informing the respondent No.2 that as there is no any panel at district level therefore names of the displaced persons is not available in district level panel. Pursuant thereto, details regarding writ petitioner had been sent by the concerned respondent authorities duly signed by Rehabilitation Officer on 07.05.2011.
The writ petitioner had regularly approached before the authorities but when no action was taken, the writ petitioner approached before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6949 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2013 whereby and whereunder the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of such order, in
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and others [(1981) 4 SCC 335]
Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others
State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha
State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.