BONGAIGAON REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. SAMIJUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellants Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. is a Government of India company engaged in the industrial activity of refinery and petrochemicals. On 15th January, 1977, the Central Government took a policy decision, the interest of rehabilitating by giving employment to persons who were displaced from their lands consequent upon actquisition for establishment of the project that at least one person in the displaced family shall be given employment in any public sector undertaking. Ahmed Ali Sarkar, the father of the respondent, was such a displaced person. He appears to have a large family. His two sons, namely, Kazimuddin Ahmed and Karamat Ali were given employment by the appellant respectively in the years 1981 and 1982. In the year 1986, the appellant company required some grade IV staff for which purpose a notification was sent to the employment exchange. Therein it was mentioned that on 17 unreserved posts preference will be given to the candidates whose land was acquired for the appellant company. The name of respondent was sponsored by the employment exchange. On 8th September, 1987, the respondent was offered an appointment on the post of Material Handling Personnel (MHP). Before he could take up the employment he was asked to fill in an attestation form vide column 21 whereof it was specifically asked if there were any of his relations working with the appellant corporation and to state their names and relationship. The respondent replied 'NIL'. He solemnly declared at the foot of the form that in the event of any material fact having been found to have been mis-stated or wilfully concealed he shall be liable to appropriate action. On 21-9-1987 the respondent gave his joining report which was not accepted by the Manager (Personnel and Administration) for reasons recorded in the file. It was found that the factum of his two brothers having already been given employment under the benevolent scheme promulgated by the Central Government was concealed which fact if disclosed, the respondent would not have been offered employment in the preferred category of displaced persons. On 5-10-1987 the respondent was informed that his joining report was rejected and the letter of appointment was withdrawn. It is stated in the communication dated 5-10-1987 that at the time of interview held on 19-1-1987 the respondent was specifically put the question whether any of his family members like brothers etc. are working in BRPL and the respondent had replied to the interview board members in negative. The truth of his averment has never been disputed by respondent.

(3.) the above said communication dated 5-10-1987 was put in issue by the respondent by filing a civil writ petition before the High Court of Assam. Vide order dated 26-5-1993 the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed in the quota in which he had sought for the appointment and therefore respondent was not entitled to any relief. The High Court also held that in canceling the appointment there was no violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the appellant. The respondent preferred a writ appeal and therein on 27-7-1993 he sought for withdrawal of the writ petition with the liberty of filing a fresh one on the same subject. This prayer was allowed by the Division Bench.