A GERARD MAJELLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner was a land loser and seeks for a direction to the respondents to provide a job to the petitioner in Class III or IV in the second respondent Institution. According to the petitioner, his lands were acquired in the year 1984 for the second respondent and he applied for a post in the land losers' category. THE petitioner's father filed a writ petition being W.P. No.9150 of 1998 to provide an employment and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.7.1998 with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of his representation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of that order. But there was no response from the respondents. Subsequently, on 09.9.1998, a further representation was made. Even then, there was no response. THErefore, the petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the above said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in writ appeal being W.A. Nos. 326 and 327 of 1998, etc. batch cases vide its judgment dated 31.8.2007. Speaking for the Division Bench, S. Mukhopadhaya, J. observed in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: Para 5: