SHEIKA TAMIJUDDIN Vs. CHAIRMAN WBSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nine writ petitioners claimed consideration for appointment under the exempted category of land losers before the respondent power generating and distribution authorities by way of writ petition registered as Civil Rule 13758 (W) of 1980. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 24th June, 1991. By the said order the individual cases of the petitioners was directed to be considered on the basis of the terms of agreement made by the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited. The said petitioners thereafter moved an application for contempt alleging violation of the directions made in the said order dated 24th June, 1991. By order dated 17th April, 1996 this Court found that the cases of four petitioners were rejected on the ground that they were sons and brothers in law of land losers. This Court held that after considering all aspects of the matter it appeared that the effect of the aforesaid judgment (dated 24th June, 1991) was not to give employment to each of the petitioners straight away but that the cases of each of the petitioners should be considered for employment with strict adherence to the aforesaid terms. This Court went on to find that in the matter of consideration and scrutiny made by the respondent authorities the same cannot be said to have been in violation of the said judgment and order. This Court further held that the respondents were given liberty to make objective scrutiny of the claims and after making such scrutiny if it is found that claim for employment is not tenable and such claim is refused, it cannot be said that there has been willful and deliberate violation of the said judgment and order. The order made in the contempt application was carried in appeal and by order dated 21st April, 1997 it was held that the appeal was not maintainable and the same was dismissed.

(2.) It appears that of the said nine writ petitioners two of them got appointment. The remaining seven have again come up by this writ petition praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to give them appointment. The case of the petitioners, as appears from the writ petition, is that the respondent authorities issued appointment letters in favour of the son-in-law of a land loser named Haripada Bhunia. For that purpose the writ petitioners relied on a copy of a document being annexure 'N' to the writ petition at page 91 thereof.

(3.) Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought to demonstrate to this Court that serial No. 10 in the list of persons given appointment by Office Order dated 20th June, 1975 (copy of which is annexure 'N' to the writ petition) is the name of the son-in-law of the said land loser of Sri Haripada Bhunia. He further submits that this list relates to appointments given to the same exempted category as serial Nos. 32 and 83 are the names of persons who are sons of land losers. According to him since the respondent authorities have considered a nominee of a land loser who is his son-in-law, the petitioners were also entitled to such consideration and that they have been discriminated against. Mr. Bakshi, further submits that it would appear from the minutes of the meeting of the Local Advisory Committee for Kolaghat Thermal Power Project held on 20th November, 1979 (being annexure 'F' to the writ petition) it was decided that the basis of preparing a panel would be that actual homestead evictees, land losers and nominees of land losers would be given preference in that order. He submits that there is no definition or qualification made by the respondent authorities as to who could be the nominee of a land loser and hence a son-in-law or a brother-in-law of a land loser should be duly considered.