JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-12), whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment in the Government job against his land acquired by the State under the policy letter No.1088/2010-OS/6/3801 dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) has been rejected. Further, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the Government job in lieu of his land acquired under the abovesaid policy.

2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the Punjab Government had issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 on 04.10.2010 for acquisition of land for Peona Power Plant at Village Gobindpura, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa and other villages and thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 17.01.2011. The ancestral land of the petitioner measuring 6 Marlas was acquired for the abovesaid Thermal Plant (Annexure P-1). On protest raised by the petitioner and all other farmers and after struggle of one year, the Government agreed to appoint one member of the each affected family. Thereafter, the petitioner and other farmers agreed to give possession of the acquired land to the Government and the Government had taken a policy decision, vide Cabinet meeting dated 23.09.2011, that one member from each family whose land has been acquired should be given the Government job and had issued letter dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa in which conditions for appointment had been given. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied for appointment in the year 2011 itself against acquisition of his land by the Government but his case was initially delayed without any reason, whereas some similarly situated persons had been appointed by the respondents at their own and two persons namely Rajdeep Singh and Harmanjit Singh had been appointed in pursuant to the orders dated 19.03.2014 & 16.05.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.4829 of 2014 and CWP No.24072 of 2012 (Annexures P-6 & P-5), respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation dated 22.03.2013 (Annexure P-10) to respondent No.2 but to no avail. Then again on 02.03.2024 the petitioner made representation to respondent No.2 for considering his case for appointment in lieu of his land acquired by the Government but no decision was taken by respondent No.2 on the same. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.14136 of 2024 (Nishan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P- 11), being not pressed on account of the submissions made by learned State counsel that the representation dated 02.03.2024, submitted by the petitioner, will be decided by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks by passing an appropriate speaking order. In pursuance to the said order, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-12), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Punjab Government had issued guidelines dated 03.03.2014, vide which policy dated 08.11.2011, of the Punjab Government has already been made obsolete and now policy/guidelines dated 03.03.2014 is applicable and as per the said policy/guidelines, the acquired land should be at least 04 Kanals to be considered for the eligibility for getting government job and the case of the petitioner is not covered under the policy/guidelines dated 03.03.2014 as the land of the petitioner measures 6 Marlas, which is less than 4 Kanals. Hence, the instant petition

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in pursuance to the policy dated 08.11.2011, the persons whose acquired land was less than 01 Marla have been appointed in the Government job and are still doing their job.