RAVINDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.2.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 vide which her claim for appointment against land user looser quota has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to offer appointment to the petitioner being eligible as no other family members have got the job against the land looser quota.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudicating the instant petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The father of the petitioner was owner of the land comprised in khewat No. 66, khatauni No. 338, khasra Nos. 331 (0-7), 332 (0-12), 333 (1-6). The said land was acquired vide notification dated 18.5.1981 (Annexure A-1) issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Components Workshop and residential colony at Jhill, Tafazalpur, Rasulpur Saidan and Alipur, Tehsil and District Patiala. The award was passed on 11.8.1981 (Annexure A-2) wherein it was noticed that the company had conceded the request of the landowners/oustees for giving priority in the matter of employment and setting up of ancillary units. Thereafter, a scheme was framed for giving employment to an eligible member of the family of the landowner whose land was acquired. In response thereto, the respondents vide letter dated 10.6.1997 (Annexure A- 3) invited applications from the left out oustees for employment as a special case to be submitted by 31.3.1998. Earlier, the applications were invited from the landowners vide letter dated 30.1.1989 with cut off date as 15.2.1989 and again vide letter dated 6.2.1990 with cut off date as 28.2.1990. The father of the petitioner whose land was acquired had died on 30.10.2002. The petitioner could not apply for job being not aware of the procedure and on coming to know about the same, she made many representations including the representation dated 3.5.2014 (Annexure A- 14). The said representation, Annexure A-14, was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.5.2014 (Annexure A-15) as no application had been filed upto cut off date of 31.3.1998. Feeling aggrieved against the order, Annexure A-15, the petitioner filed Original Application (OA) No. 060/01115/2005. Since, the OA was barred by time, an application bearing No. 060/00166/2016 was filed for condonation of 193 days' delay in filing the OA. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.2.2016 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the misc. application for condonation of delay and the OA. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.