The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of land losers cannot be claimed as a matter of right and any government order providing employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired would be invalid. Such appointments would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

As a consequence of the enforcement of the project called as “Lakhwar Vyashi Hydro Dam”, which was to be constructed over the Yamuna River, certain surrounding areas of the land adjoining to the Dam and the Barrage, were acquired which was initiated at the behest of respondent No.2 herein, who had launched the project, for laying down the Dam, as referred above the land of villagers, likely to be effected by the project, was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the State of Uttarakhand under the Policy, which has been framed by virtue of a Notification, being Notification No. 1229/1(2)/2013/05/104/2005 T.C.-1 dated 28th June 2013, to be read with a Policy, which was called as “Rehabilitation and reconstruction for Hydro Project Policy 2013” had laid down certain parameters for acquisition of land.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that as many as 311 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil, Mechanical & Electrical) were advertised to be filled in, out of which, 38 posts of Civil Engineer and 15 posts of Electrical and Mechanical engineers, who were to be given appointments, were amongst from those candidates, whose land was acquired as a consequence of enforcement of the said project.

4. For the purposes of enforcement of the Notification entailing the aspect of grant of appointment to those as a consequence of an acquisition, a Committee was constituted for laying down the parameters as to how the Regulations were to be made for the purposes of offering an appointment to the prospective candidates, whose land has been acquired, depending upon the percentage or area of land acquired for the purposes of the project.

5. As a consequence of laying down the policy under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister dated 2nd June 2015, it was observed, that all those land holders, whose land have been acquired of more than 60%, of their holding they would only be entitled and covered by the Notification for extension of grant of an appointment as a consequence of an acquisition of their land.

6. As a result thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a recruitment process was carried by the respondents for appointment on various other posts, including 23 posts of junior engineers (E & M), and 56 posts of junior engineers (Civil), inviting applications from the eligible candidates of the land affected families.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that after conclusion of process, respondent No. 2, had prepared the select list in accordance with the preferential categories in respect to the respective trades of civil, mechanical and electrical, and it was found that four candidates, who belonged to the same family, they were considered for appointment, but, however, the petitioner contends, that since he was lower in the merit of category 3, of appointments, his name could not find placed in the select list, and therefore, he was kept in the waiting list.

8. He submits, that later on two candidates, namely Neeraj Tomar and Rishika Tomar, who had been otherwise placed at Sl. No. 17 and 18 in the select list of junior engineers (Electrical & Mechanical), they have given their affidavits to the effect, that they do not want to pursue their candidatures any further for the purposes of appointment, as their brothers have already been selected as Junior Engineers (Civil), and based on the aforesaid withdrawal of names by the aforesaid two persons, appearing at Sl. No. 17 & 18 respectively, the petitioner contends, that since he was kept in the wait list, he would be entitled to be considered to be appointed, as against the post, which was held to be made available to those family members, whose land was acquired for the said project and had later renounced their claims, hence petitioner will fall in the zone of consideration. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for a writ of mandamus for his appoint