IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P. No. 1187 of 2011
C.Rajendran .. Petitioner Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Collector, Vellore District
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.
4. BHEL (BAP) Unit, Rep. By its Executive Director, Ranipet, Vellore District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner in the 4th respondent unit following the policy of one job for one family of whose lands were acquired by the 1st respondent for the benefit of the 4th respondent.
For Petitioner : M/s. A.B.Fathima Sulthana For RR 1 to 3 : Mr. S.Diwakar, Special Govt. Pleader For R4 : Mr.John Zachariah for M/s. Fox Mandal Association
O R D E R
Heard Ms.A.B.Fathima Sulthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.John Zachariah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 4.
2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition praying to direct the 1st and 4th respondents to appoint the petitioner in the 4th respondent-unit following the policy of “one job for one family”, of whose lands were acquired by the 1st respondent for the benefit of the 4th respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 1st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 27.01.1981, Industries Department, by which the 1st respondent imposed a condition that the displaced persons should be provided with employment by the 4th respondent. The land herein mentioned belongs to the petitioner's father M.Chinnaswami. The land was acquired by the 1st respondent for the benefit of the 4th respondent as per Award No.3/82, which was situated at survey no.96, at Narsinghapuram. According to the petitioner that no one was provided employment as against the award in favour of the petitioner's father. Earlier, his father applied for appointment, in view of the above award, but the 4th respondent has not passed any order on his father's application. Hence, the petitioner applied for the job on 10.10.2009 with respect to the above said award. But, he was not given job as per the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 27.01.1981.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.2906 of 1995 etc. was filed before this Court by the erstwhile landowners, and this Court, by an order dated 18.09.1995, has directed the 4th respondent to consider the case of the erstwhile landowners in preference to the others in the matters of recruitment. Subsequently, this Court by an order dated 13.05.2008 made in W.P.No. No.4113 of 1998 and others (Batch), directed the 3rd respondent to notify the constitution of a Screening Committee and give adequate publicity to the land losers in order to appear before the Committee with necessary records.
5. The order in W.P.Nos.2906 of 1995 etc. batch is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1394 of 1995. In W.P.No.4113 of 1998 and others (batch), by an order dated 13.05.2008, this Court allowed the Writ Petition directing to form a Screening committee and to examine the applicants claim. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent filed appeals in W.A.Nos.1275 to 1277 of 2008 (batch), which were dismissed by this Court, by judgment dated 29.09.2010. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the above said prayer.
6. According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the petitioner has submitted his application to the Screening Committee claiming employment and he was asked to appear before the Screening Committee on 16.11.2011. The petitioner appeared before the Screening committee on that date for enquiry. After due enquiry, the Screening Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner, as employment in respect of the said land was already provided to M.Chinnaswami, in the 4th respondent company at Ranipet and he was also retired from the service of the 4th respondent company. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer in the Writ Petition as well as the averments made in this Writ Petition cannot be considered. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the fact that the Screening committee had considered the petitioner's application and the same was rejected for the reason that one M.Chinnaswami was already employed in the 4th respondent company, in respect of the said award. Therefore, the petitioner once again appeared before this Court, challenging the decision of the said Committee and has filed this Writ Petition before this Court, which cannot be entertained. Already his father, the awardee, M.Chinnaswami, was provided employment in the 4th respondent unit. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.01.2017 Index: Yes/ No Internet:Yes/No pvs To
1. The Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Collector, Vellore District
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.
pvs
W.P. No. 1187 of 2011
05.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in