PURSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the averments made, certain land of mother of the petitioner namely Smt.Sushila daughter of Kale, resident of Payala, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was acquired for setting up of a Bottling Plant of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. It is the further case of the petitioner that a policy was framed that the land owners, whose land was acquired, will be offered suitable jobs in the Bottling Plant and every eligible person shall be adjusted.

(2.) It is his further case that even the respondent-Corporation sent a list of the project-affected persons, whose land was acquired, and in that list name of mother of the petitioner finds mention. Not only this, her name also finds mention in the list (Annexure P-8) sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad to the Director, Employment, Haryana.

(3.) However, the respondents refused to offer any job to the mother of the petitioner allegedly on the ground that they were not recruiting any woman and they assured that as and when any other person of her family becomes eligible for a suitable post, he shall be considered at an appropriate time. Accordingly, the petitioner, whose date of birth is 25.06.1984, approached the respondents for appointment. Even he served a legal notice upon the respondentCorporation. However, his case was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.17355 of 2007. The said writ petition was got withdrawn by the petitioner to avail any other remedy available to him vide order dated 15.11.2007. Thereafter, again the petitioner made a representation to the respondents and the same was rejected vide letter dated 16.02.2008 (Annexure P-12).